Fahrenheit 9/11

Forlorn · July 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AllUrHiveRBelong2Us @ Jul 23 2004, 09:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Jul 23 2004, 08:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> So why do people hate America, dispite how hard it tries to satisfy others? </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Oh yeah, the US is just bending over backwards to help people ALL the friggin time. I remember that time we just kinda took over Hawaii, and when we occupied the phillipeans, and when we gave Middle Eastern soldiers arms to fight against the soviets for us oh and when we killed the Indians. So selfless.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
I remember the time we saved the world?

But wait, that one doesn't count....

AllUrHiveRblong2us · July 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Jul 23 2004, 09:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AllUrHiveRBelong2Us @ Jul 23 2004, 09:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Jul 23 2004, 08:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> So why do people hate America, dispite how hard it tries to satisfy others? </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Oh yeah, the US is just bending over backwards to help people ALL the friggin time. I remember that time we just kinda took over Hawaii, and when we occupied the phillipeans, and when we gave Middle Eastern soldiers arms to fight against the soviets for us oh and when we killed the Indians. So selfless. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I remember the time we saved the world?

But wait, that one doesn't count....  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
So that's 1 time we saved it, then a whole lot of other times we killed a lot of people for no reason. Check.

Forlorn · July 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AllUrHiveRBelong2Us @ Jul 23 2004, 09:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Jul 23 2004, 09:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AllUrHiveRBelong2Us @ Jul 23 2004, 09:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Jul 23 2004, 08:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> So why do people hate America, dispite how hard it tries to satisfy others? </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Oh yeah, the US is just bending over backwards to help people ALL the friggin time. I remember that time we just kinda took over Hawaii, and when we occupied the phillipeans, and when we gave Middle Eastern soldiers arms to fight against the soviets for us oh and when we killed the Indians. So selfless. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I remember the time we saved the world?

But wait, that one doesn't count.... </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
So that's 1 time we saved it, then a whole lot of other times we killed a lot of people for no reason. Check.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Actually, maybe we've saved it twice now (Hitler winning WW2? gg, or Nuclear Holocaust)... and kept it in a fragile state of being from the threat of a nuclear war over 50 years.

But I guess this is only counts as two items. You are right, I lose <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' />

AllUrHiveRblong2us · July 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Jul 23 2004, 09:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AllUrHiveRBelong2Us @ Jul 23 2004, 09:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Jul 23 2004, 09:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AllUrHiveRBelong2Us @ Jul 23 2004, 09:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Jul 23 2004, 08:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> So why do people hate America, dispite how hard it tries to satisfy others? </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Oh yeah, the US is just bending over backwards to help people ALL the friggin time. I remember that time we just kinda took over Hawaii, and when we occupied the phillipeans, and when we gave Middle Eastern soldiers arms to fight against the soviets for us oh and when we killed the Indians. So selfless. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I remember the time we saved the world?

But wait, that one doesn't count.... </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
So that's 1 time we saved it, then a whole lot of other times we killed a lot of people for no reason. Check. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Actually, maybe we've saved it twice now (Hitler winning WW2? gg, or Nuclear Holocaust)... and kept it in a fragile state of being from the threat of a nuclear war over 50 years.

But I guess this is only counts as two items. You are right, I lose <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' />  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
You can't count WW1 as saving the world. We just saved some of Europe. And as for the whole "preventing nuclear war" thing, the only way we prevented nuclear war was by not firing our own nukes off. In that way the USSR saved the world too. In fact the USSR probly saved the world at least as many times as we did.

Forlorn · July 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AllUrHiveRBelong2Us @ Jul 23 2004, 10:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Jul 23 2004, 09:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AllUrHiveRBelong2Us @ Jul 23 2004, 09:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Jul 23 2004, 09:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AllUrHiveRBelong2Us @ Jul 23 2004, 09:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Jul 23 2004, 08:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> So why do people hate America, dispite how hard it tries to satisfy others? </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Oh yeah, the US is just bending over backwards to help people ALL the friggin time. I remember that time we just kinda took over Hawaii, and when we occupied the phillipeans, and when we gave Middle Eastern soldiers arms to fight against the soviets for us oh and when we killed the Indians. So selfless. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I remember the time we saved the world?

But wait, that one doesn't count.... </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
So that's 1 time we saved it, then a whole lot of other times we killed a lot of people for no reason. Check. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Actually, maybe we've saved it twice now (Hitler winning WW2? gg, or Nuclear Holocaust)... and kept it in a fragile state of being from the threat of a nuclear war over 50 years.

But I guess this is only counts as two items. You are right, I lose <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
You can't count WW1 as saving the world. We just saved some of Europe. And as for the whole "preventing nuclear war" thing, the only way we prevented nuclear war was by not firing our own nukes off. In that way the USSR saved the world too. In fact the USSR probly saved the world at least as many times as we did.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Two times:

WW2, Cold War.

By the way, how the hell did the USSR save the world? If America wasn't in place then the USSR would have painted the globe red, Red Alert 2 style.

But again, it's only two times, I can't forget how we did all those other awful things, like reconstruct a continent, Japan, or protect countless of others from invasion.

Bad bad America.

AllUrHiveRblong2us · July 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Jul 23 2004, 10:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AllUrHiveRBelong2Us @ Jul 23 2004, 10:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Jul 23 2004, 09:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AllUrHiveRBelong2Us @ Jul 23 2004, 09:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Jul 23 2004, 09:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AllUrHiveRBelong2Us @ Jul 23 2004, 09:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Jul 23 2004, 08:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> So why do people hate America, dispite how hard it tries to satisfy others? </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Oh yeah, the US is just bending over backwards to help people ALL the friggin time. I remember that time we just kinda took over Hawaii, and when we occupied the phillipeans, and when we gave Middle Eastern soldiers arms to fight against the soviets for us oh and when we killed the Indians. So selfless. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I remember the time we saved the world?

But wait, that one doesn't count.... </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
So that's 1 time we saved it, then a whole lot of other times we killed a lot of people for no reason. Check. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Actually, maybe we've saved it twice now (Hitler winning WW2? gg, or Nuclear Holocaust)... and kept it in a fragile state of being from the threat of a nuclear war over 50 years.

But I guess this is only counts as two items. You are right, I lose <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
You can't count WW1 as saving the world. We just saved some of Europe. And as for the whole "preventing nuclear war" thing, the only way we prevented nuclear war was by not firing our own nukes off. In that way the USSR saved the world too. In fact the USSR probly saved the world at least as many times as we did. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Two times:

WW2, Cold War.

By the way, how the hell did the USSR save the world? If America wasn't in place then the USSR would have painted the globe red, Red Alert 2 style.

But again, it's only two times, I can't forget how we did all those other awful things, like reconstruct a continent, Japan, or protect countless of others from invasion.

Bad bad America.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
The USSR had nukes too, they didn't fire 'em. Taking the exact same amount of steps as we did to prevent nuclear war. TADA world saved. Oh, and they helped stop the Nazis. That's 2 times for the US, 2 times for the USSR.

Reconstructing one continent (I'm guessing you mean Europe) while constantly throwing another (South America) into turmoil and death and war and bad stuff kinda cancels itself out though.

I'll give you WW2, yes we did a good thing. Stopping Hitler was good, yes it was. But that does not excuse us from having to own up to a history of aggression.

HBNayr · July 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Jul 23 2004, 10:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> [America saved the world] Two times:

WW2, Cold War. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
America did not single-handedly "save the world" in World War 2. To say that we did is an insult to those in Europe and Russia who killed, and died, to work <i>with</i> Americans. And while America's contribution was certainly great, it was far easier for Americans to work in factories that were not actively being bombed.

And American did more to <i>cause</i> the Cold War than to prevent it. As a nation, we still have enough armaments to destroy civilization many times over. So much time and energy wasted on these weapons. America's biggest act to move away from war was John Fitzgerald Kennedy's declaration of America's goal of reaching the moon by the end of the 1960s. By doing so, he pushed both America and Russian funds away from ICBMs and into the space race. Science advanced by leaps and bounds, and the world still got to see just how well our rockets could work. That didn't stop people like Reagan, however, from putting us as far into debt as possible to ensure that world civilization would be destroyed many times over if an accident were to ever occur. And in the end, not a single missile was necessary to destroy Communism in Soviet Russia. Capitalism did the job handedly. And if you think that the American government had anything to do with that, aside from stepping aside and letting capitalism run rampant, then you seriously misunderstand what occurred during the Cold War.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>By the way, how the hell did the USSR save the world? If America wasn't in place then the USSR would have painted the globe red, Red Alert 2 style.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Your ignorance of world events after World War 2 is truly frightening. Russia moved from a socialist stance to a more totalitarian communist stance mainly because of the perceived threat they believed America, and its cultural imperialism, brought. The USSR may have expansion in mind, but only because they wanted to grab any land they could before America could a toehold. If America did not threaten Russia, whether that threat is real or not, there are many who think that a peaceful and successful socialism may have flourished.

Don't assume that I support socialism, however. I'm all for capitalism. It rewards those things that work, and punishes those that do not. And I believe the average human is far too lazy for socialism to work perfectly. I am just unable to understand the fear so many Americans had, and some who still have, a deep-seated fear of socialism and its dreaded cousin, communism.

And AllUrHiveRBelong2Us has a quite valid point. America has done far more to place the world into grave danger than to save it in the last 100 years. That's not to say that America has not made great contributions. But to assume we are perfect only set us up for more brilliant and dangerous failures in the near future.

-Ryan!

"We're not building missiles to fight a war.
We're building missiles to preserve the peace."
-- Ronald Reagan

"Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do."
-- Ronald Reagan, 1981

"I have flown twice over Mt St Helens out on our west coast. I'm not a scientist and I don't know the figures, but I have a suspicion that that one little mountain has probably released more sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere of the world than has been released in the last ten years of automobile driving or things of that kind that people are so concerned about."
-- Ronald Reagan, 1980.
Actually, Mount St. Helens, at its peak activity, emitted about 2,000 tons of sulphur dioxide per day, compared with 81,000 tons per day by cars.

"Facts are stupid things."
-- Ronald Reagan, 1988
Slight misquote of John Adams, 'Facts are stubborn things.'

"This fellow they've nominated claims he's the new Thomas Jefferson. Well let me tell you something; I knew Thomas Jefferson. He was a friend of mine and Governor... You're no Thomas Jefferson!"
-- Ronald Reagan, 1992

"Ever notice we live in a world where good men are murdered and mediocre hacks thrive? John Kennedy murdered, Gandhi murdered. Martin Luther King murdered. Jesus murdered. Reagan... wounded."
-- Bill Hicks

Forlorn · July 2004

Guys, the USSR would have invaded if America was not in it's way.

America would not have invaded if the USSR was missing from the picture.

HBNayr · July 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Jul 23 2004, 11:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Guys, the USSR would have invaded if America was not in it's way.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Russia moved from a socialist stance to a more totalitarian communist stance mainly because of the perceived threat they believed America, and its cultural imperialism, brought. The USSR may have expansion in mind, but only because they wanted to grab any land they could before America could a toehold. If America did not threaten Russia, whether that threat is real or not, there are many who think that a peaceful and successful socialism may have flourished.

Don't assume that I support socialism, however. I'm all for capitalism. It rewards those things that work, and punishes those that do not. And I believe the average human is far too lazy for socialism to work perfectly. I am just unable to understand the fear so many Americans had, and some who still have, a deep-seated fear of socialism and its dreaded cousin, communism.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>America would not have invaded if the USSR was missing from the picture.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Excellent point. We probably would not become an Empire without Russia standing up to us. Not forcefully, at any rate. Probably. But hypotheticals are so hard to run through. At any rate, without the USSR there, America certainly would not have had the inclination for industrial and technological development we had throughout the previous 50 years.

-Ryan!

"Doubt is not a pleasant mental state but certainty is a ridiculous one."
-- Voltaire

"The important thing is not to stop questioning."
-- Albert Einstein

"If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least
once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things."
-- Rene Descartes

AllUrHiveRblong2us · July 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Jul 23 2004, 11:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Guys, the USSR would have invaded if America was not in it's way.

America would not have invaded if the USSR was missing from the picture. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
You're sayng we've never invaded another country ever? Or are you just saying we wouldn't have invaded Russia? Cuz actually, we did try.

anon · July 2004

Damn staying on topic....

Since there doesn't seem to be a problem with something being biased... I'll post this link:
<a href='http://moorewatch.com/index.php/C18/' target='_blank'>http://moorewatch.com/index.php/C18/</a>

Just something else... Be sure to click on "More..."
<a href='http://moorewatch.com/index.php/burning_passion/' target='_blank'>http://moorewatch.com/index.php/burning_passion/</a>

I've tried reading all 13 pages... And I've read the vast majority of it... But with all the OT stuff I'm sure there's some I missed... Anyways, one thing I did want to correct that is still fresh in my mind ( and I'm not sure if this was mentioned ) deals with the Saudis leaving the US after 9/11. What is not mentioned in the movie, is that a number of them WERE questioned by the FBI ( actually, I believe this directly refutes what's in the movie ) AND they did not leave until AFTER flight restrictions for the entire country were eased ( on or after 9/13, which he fails to mention the significance of ).

There's more... But I'm at work and so my time is limited.

BathroomMonkey · July 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>What is not mentioned in the movie, is that a number of them WERE questioned by the FBI ( actually, I believe this directly refutes what's in the movie )</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

This is something I had commonly seen the film called on, so I paid attention to it when I saw it in the theater. In one of the interviews, Moore says (and here I'm paraphrasing a bit, since I can't recall it and don't currently have the time to search for the precise quote), 'So their passports where checked, they were asked a few simple questions and allowed to exit the country?'

It <i>wasn't</i> whether or not they were questioned; it was the extent of the questioning.

As he says on his site:
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Several unanswered questions posed by Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) in a July 20, 2004, Grand Forks Herald column: “At a time when 14 of the 19 terrorists from Sept. 11 were Saudi citizens, how and why were six secret flights allowed to sneak 142 Saudi citizens out of the United States in the days after Sept. 11 before they were properly interrogated? How do we know they weren't properly questioned? Because Dale Watson, the No. 2 man and former head of counterterrorism at the FBI has said none of them were subjected to ‘serious’ interrogation or questions before being allowed to leave. In fact, we now know that at least two and perhaps more of the Saudis who were allowed to leave after Sept. 11 were under investigation by the FBI for alleged terrorist connections.” </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

So the questioning <i>was</i> mentioned in the film.

anon · July 2004

From the final report: <a href='http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/US/resources/9.11.report/911Report.pdf' target='_blank'>http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/US/resources/9.11.r...t/911Report.pdf</a>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Flights of Saudi Nationals Leaving the United States
Three questions have arisen with respect to the departure of Saudi
nationals from the United States in the immediate aftermath of 9/11:
(1) Did any flights of Saudi nationals take place before national airspace
reopened on September 13, 2001? (2) Was there any political intervention
to facilitate the departure of Saudi nationals? (3) Did the FBI
screen Saudi nationals thoroughly before their departure?
First, we found no evidence that any flights of Saudi nationals,
domestic or international, took place before the reopening of national
airspace on the morning of September 13, 2001.24 To the contrary,
every flight we have identified occurred after national airspace
reopened.25
Second, we found no evidence of political intervention.We found
no evidence that anyone at the White House above the level of Richard
Clarke participated in a decision on the departure of Saudi nationals.
The issue came up in one of the many video teleconferences of the
interagency group Clarke chaired, and Clarke said he approved of how
the FBI was dealing with the matter when it came up for interagency
discussion at his level. Clarke told us,“I asked the FBI, Dale Watson . . .
to handle that, to check to see if that was all right with them, to see if
they wanted access to any of these people, and to get back to me.And
if they had no objections, it would be fine with me.” Clarke added,“I
have no recollection of clearing it with anybody at the White
House.”26
Although White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card remembered
someone telling him about the Saudi request shortly after 9/11, he said
he had not talked to the Saudis and did not ask anyone to do anything
about it.The President and Vice President told us they were not aware
of the issue at all until it surfaced much later in the media. None of the
officials we interviewed recalled any intervention or direction on this
matter from any political appointee.27
Third,we believe that the FBI conducted a satisfactory screening of
Saudi nationals who left the United States on charter flights.28 The
Saudi government was advised of and agreed to the FBI’s requirements
that passengers be identified and checked against various databases
before the flights departed.29The Federal Aviation Administration representative
working in the FBI operations center made sure that the
330 THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT
FBI was aware of the flights of Saudi nationals and was able to screen
the passengers before they were allowed to depart.30
The FBI interviewed all persons of interest on these flights prior to
their departures.They concluded that none of the passengers was connected
to the 9/11 attacks and have since found no evidence to change
that conclusion. Our own independent review of the Saudi nationals
involved confirms that no one with known links to terrorism departed
on these flights.31</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Is that not good enough? For me it is... Although neither Moore, nor either of us can give a definitive answer. We must thus accept the report from the 911 Commission that the questioning was enough and that what Moore now claims on his site is not corroborated.

The questioning was mentioned in the film... But mentioned in such a way to give the viewer the idea that it was not extensive enough. Once again, an unfounded claim.

Lets see... What else can we bring up about the film? Hmmmmmm.... How about the Carlyle stuff? You know, the part where Moore claims the Saudis invested $1.4 billion in the Bushes and their associates?

Well... Where to start... Where to start. Lets start with a lil tid bit about how there are just as many, if not more high-ranking Democrats associated with them. This includes George Soros as an investor ( there goes someone who may be more anti-Bush than Moore ). Then there is the matter of that $1.4 billion. The $1.4 billion where almost 90% of it were contracts to a subsidiary of Carlyle, BDM before GWB Sr. even came on an advisory board ( also, lets remember the Democrats ). GWB Sr. didn't even get on the advisory board until 5 months after Carlyle sold BDM. In all fairness, I'll mention Moore's defense to these facts... That at the time of the $1.18 billion contracts Carlyle included some Bush associates. Well... Lets just remember the Democrats too.

Moore neglects to menion how Bush has harmed Carlyle. It was his administration that stopped the $11 billion Crusader program, which was being developed by another subsidiary of the Carlyle Group. The Crusader program was one of the only weapons systems canceled by the Bush administration ( good move too btw ).

Marine0I · August 2004

[URL=59 deceits in Farenheit 9/11]http://davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm[/URL]

I dont know if someone already posted this, but I did a forum search for Dave Kopel and came up dry.

BathroomMonkey · August 2004

They have. And once again, I'll link this:

<a href='http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/7/18/173312/462' target='_blank'>Debunking '59 Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11'</a>

I haven't made my way through all of them, but yet again, there is a bit of the 'well, if it's against Michael Moore then it must be correct, and I can take that as Gospel, without applying the same standards to its research as I do to Moore's, which is rather ironic'.

Well, I as just looking through them and lookie what I found--

It was triumphantly declared that:
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Moore neglects to menion how Bush has harmed Carlyle. It was his administration that stopped the $11 billion Crusader program, which was being developed by another subsidiary of the Carlyle Group. The Crusader program was one of the only weapons systems canceled by the Bush administration ( good move too btw ). </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

This is also in Kopel's list as this:
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Moore claims that refusing to mention the Crusader cancellation was alright because the cancellation came after the United Defense IPO. But the cancellation had a serious negative financial impact on Carlyle, since Carlyle still owns 47% of United Defense.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

The whole story? Yeah, I guess. Good point. Bush hates Carlyle, and Michael Moore is a lying, stup--

Wait, <a href='http://www.uniteddefense.com/pr/pr_20020809.htm' target='_blank'>this just in.</a>

The same day the Crusader was cancelled, United Defense (the same darn company) received a <i>brand spanking new</i> contract from the Defense Department!

Details:
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>United Defense and the companies of the Crusader team will now work with the Army to transition many of the more than two dozen cutting edge technologies developed over the past 8 years into the lighter, more deployable and lethal Objective Force Cannon, which is also known as the Non-Line-of-Sight (NLOS) cannon. Work for the remainder of the Government's current fiscal year (2002) will be done under the new $27 million contract. The House and Senate in their respective appropriations bills agreed to provide $368.5 million in funding for fiscal 2003 for the new cannon system. However, the availability of additional funding for the new system will depend upon further legislative action once Congress returns from recess in September, as well as follow-up by the Army and perhaps the Department of Defense. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

This is <i>after</i> sinking over 2 billion into the Crusader, which was being dumped because it was comically expensive and depleting the funding available for future weapons systems.

So when the government took love away from Carlyle, they immediate started giving it right back.

Why, golly, I wonder why Kopel didn't mention that obvious and entirely relevant bit of information! I mean, he <b>must</b> respect his readers much more than that, because it's precisely the sort of thing he takes Moore to task over!

I am <i>quite</i> certain he left it out as an innocent oversight, and <i>not</i> because it completely contradicted his contradiction of Moore's account. Hmmmmmmmm . . .

anon · August 2004

So a Defense Contractor was given another contract after their last one was cancelled? Is this something new? Does that never happen or something? It didn't need to be mentioned because it is not important.

Lets not forget that the Bush family are not the only political figures involved with Carlyle... Many prominent Democrats and anti-Bush people are as well. George Soros ring a bell for anyone? As the 59 Deceits says... Mentioning such things totally ruins the simplistic conspiracy theory that Moore wants to suggest.

BathroomMonkey · August 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (anon @ Aug 6 2004, 12:19 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> So a Defense Contractor was given another contract after their last one was cancelled? Is this something new? Does that never happen or something? It didn't need to be mentioned because it is not important.

 </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Let's look at your original post. You said this:

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Moore neglects to menion how Bush has harmed Carlyle.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

'Harmed'. This is the word you've used.

According to dictionary.com, 'harm' means:
1)Physical or psychological injury or damage.
2)Wrong; evil.

Now, taken independently: yes, the cancellation of the Crusader contract <i>might</i> just constitute harm. Well, if 2 billion dollars hadn't been spent on a shelved weapon system, and the remaining nine billion could have been justified. Otherwise, it wasn't so much 'harm' as it was 'being responsible to the American taxpayer'.

However, since the cancelled contract neatly coincided with a new contract (27 million for the remainder of the year, 358 million for the following year, and an 8 year estimate for contractual necessity) I don't think you can call it 'harm'.

Damage (in a loose sense of the word, since our Government--in theory--owes more allegience to its taxpayers and not a for-profit defense contractor) is done, but then said damage is immediately reversed.

So to say that Bush 'harmed' Carlyle is to present . . . . drum roll, please . . . . a <i>half truth</i>.

Just like you guys say Michael Moore does. Funny how it's justified when it supports <i>your</i> worldview, ain't it?

Marine0I · August 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>This is probably going to come up a lot. 'Creates the impression...' It's important to keep in mind (this is the epiphany part) that Moore did not create the film for NRO writers, or for political bloggers, or for pundits or wonks. He created it for all the Lila Lipscombs and Sgt. Michael Petersons of the world.

That knowledge is absolutely crucial for debunking maybe 95% of the attacks on the film. When Michael Moore mentions, say, the Unocal natural gas pipeline plan, that reference will dreg up a whole wealth of related info in the mind of a political junkie, info that isn't actually in the film. It's important to focus on what Moore actually includes, not what a Google search on what he includes might turn up.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Well, I've started reading the rebuttal to 59 deceits, but fears are already surfacing. Specifically that one above. Its like he's trying to claim that you cant bring info that isnt expressly included in the film, even if your trying to attack the claims its making.

Part of Moores genius (as stated in the introduction to Kopel's 59 deceits), is not in his blatant lies, but in the way he works technically correct information to create a wildly off the mark result. I have too many friends who have seen it and say things like "I couldnt believe the American news channels were so stupid that they all just listened to fox news and it changed their election" or "How could GWB be such a casual bastard about terrorism on the golf course when his country had just been attacked". In films, especially those posing as documentaries, the impression given to the reader is everything.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>It's amazing to me that the opposition to Moore seems to know exactly what 'viewers' or 'the viewer' will think after watching a particular segment. Could be arrogance, I suppose, or maybe they're just able to bend the ear of some really experienced propaganda experts.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

But Mr Koss doesnt seem to agree. An entire film devoted mainly to the sledging of one man, but its impossible to prove that the audience will pick up on any negative connotations thrown at GWB? He can live in his world, I'll live in the real world. Its starting to read less and less like a debunking (His facts are wrong on points here, here and here) and more like "and how does he know what the audience thinks - is he a mind reader"

I saw the film before reading any criticism more in depth than the bash from Christopher Hitchens - and I got the clear and distinctive impression that at a time when every last plane in America was grounded, the Saudi's got special permission from the White House and took off without so much as an interview. Koss points out that Moore mentions a "little interview", but that wasnt what I remembered.

BathroomMonkey · August 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Aug 6 2004, 02:58 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> [I got the clear and distinctive impression that at a time when every last plane in America was grounded, the Saudi's got special permission from the White House and took off without so much as an interview. Koss points out that Moore mentions a "little interview", but that wasnt what I remembered.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
No time to address the rest right now, but as I've said before, this was in there.

"A little Interview" is definitely mentioned. I don't mean to sound like a jerk when I say this, but it's appropriate to blame him for half truths and factual innacuracies, but for your own faulty recollection or lack of attention?

Marine0I · August 2004

Koss said he was paraphrasing Moore. My point is that I was concentrating pretty damn hard, cause I was determined to catch Moore out on any point, and I missed it. I'm going again soon with pen + paper, so I'll say more then. If thats the case, and Moore actually did say something like that, then Moore didnt lie, but he's still deceptive. In that segment of the movie, they talk about how you have to go and have a talk to the suspects, especially family members, in a criminal investigation.

His whole point in that segment was "Sif let them go, they should have been interrogated." To turn it back upon his "Clinton/McVeigh" example, would they really have burnt the President if he interviewed McVeighs family, then let them fly out of the country? I think not.

However, Kopel should point out stuff like that, so I'm gonna email him and ask him to change it.

My real beef with the film is this - its so hard to know what to believe these days. I generally support Bush, but I've read some pretty damning stuff on the man too. I hate being lied to, by either conservatives or liberals - nothing is more humiliating than using a fallicious arguement and then getting pulled up on it. I dont see farenheit 9/11 shedding more light on the Bush family, I see it as adding more BS to the political debate. Nothing fires me up like people who say "But its okay for him to put it that way, he's just presenting his point of view." And adding more deception to an already difficult to determine matter <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' />

edit Also in Kopel's defence, he did link at the bottom of his article to several websites critiquing his. Nor did he make rediculous claims like "Its true, its all true, I've got a team of fact checkers and if anyone tells you its wrong, they're liars".

I would also recommend to Mr. Koss that if he doesnt really have an arguement on some points, he should just admit that maybe Kopel has him rather than act incredulous at the claims being made.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Bush once served on the Board of Directors of the Harken Energy Company. According to Fahrenheit:
Moore: Yes, it helps to be the President's son. Especially when you're being investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

TV reporter: In 1990 when M. Bush was a director of Harken Energy he received this memo from company lawyers warning directors not to sell stock if they had unfavorable information about the company. One week later he sold $848,000 worth of Harken stock. Two months later, Harken announced losses of more than $23 million dollars.

Moore:...Bush beat the rap from the SEC...

What Moore left out: Bush sold the stock long after he checked with those same 'company lawyers' who had provided the cautionary memo, and they told him that the sale was all right. Almost all of the information that caused Harken's large quarterly loss developed only after Bush had sold the stock.

Despite Moore's pejorative that Bush "beat the rap," no-one has ever found any evidence suggesting that he engaged in illegal insider trading.

<i>Almost all? Meaning that there was some information related to the loss that Bush could have known before he sold off the stock?

Sounds like "beating the rap" to me...</i></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

That doesnt qualify as a rebuttal to me.

anon · August 2004

BM:

Your definition of "harmed" does not even mention financial harm. Canceling the Crusader program did harm the company financially. They had already had $2 billion come in and were expecting another $9 billion... How can that not be financially harmed?

Again, I ask if it was unexpected that they get another contract? I mean, it sounds like the entire business is about government military contracts. Also, there is a bit of sense to UD getting the new contract. Its another artillery program, although a good bit different, there is still the high likelihood that things learned from Crusader would be very useful with the new program.

Was this new contract equal to the old? Was it 1:1 or 1:3 or what?

Does any of it really matter? Not really.

Canceling the Crusader program was not beneficial to UD. That is the point.

Note: I do want to say that I agree with the canceling of the Crusader program. It was a very good move.

BathroomMonkey · August 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (anon @ Aug 6 2004, 04:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Canceling the Crusader program was not beneficial to UD. That is the point.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
<a href='http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?prod=11323&session=dae.4550003.1091812316.QRO73MOa9dUAACKDTgM&modele=jdc_1' target='_blank'>Linkie.</a>

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><b>United Defense indicated that for the year 2002, the combination of the Crusader cancellation and the new cannon contract was not expected to have a significant impact on the company's revenues, profits, or funded contract backlog.</b> The Company also noted that, beyond 2002, the longer-term financial impact of the Crusader and Objective Force cannon developments would depend upon the results of what may be an extended negotiation with the Army over the costs of terminating the Crusader program, as well as whether the Army and Congress continue to support the new cannon system in future years. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

In their own words, it's a wash. So I would assume that the level of income they were receiving from the Defense Department remained relatively stable.

You can't look at a single cancelled contract and point to it as definitive evidence that Bush 'hurts' United Defense, you have to look at the balance of its contracts.

Beyond the above quote, I haven't found anything yet.

But my point is that when you pull that tid bit-- one cancelled contract out-- and use that <i>independent</i> of other contracts they might have to make a point-- you're selectively presenting evidence which, while on its own is factually true, doesn't tell the whole story.

Again, something which is somehow <i>bad</i> when Michael Moore does it.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
What Moore left out: Bush sold the stock long after he checked with those same 'company lawyers' who had provided the cautionary memo, and they told him that the sale was all right. Almost all of the information that caused Harken's large quarterly loss developed only after Bush had sold the stock.

Despite Moore's pejorative that Bush "beat the rap," no-one has ever found any evidence suggesting that he engaged in illegal insider trading.

Almost all? Meaning that there was some information related to the loss that Bush could have known before he sold off the stock?

Sounds like "beating the rap" to me...

That doesnt qualify as a rebuttal to me.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

But, of course, you're just assuming that the initial point has merit. Let's explore. Why was Bush investigated by the SEC? Was it because he sold the stock?

From the San Fransisco Chronicle:
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The White House said a "clerical mistake" by lawyers was to blame for President Bush's failure to disclose an $848,560 stock sale in a timely fashion, as required by federal law, when he was on the board of directors of a Texas oil company in 1990.
******************
The controversy involves Bush's sale of shares of stock in Harken Energy Co. , an oil and gas exploration company. Bush had acquired shares in the company and joined its board in the mid-1980s when Harken bought his money-losing energy firm, Spectrum 7.

On June 22, 1990, Bush sold 212,140 shares of Harken stock -- just two months before the company reported a $23 million loss. At the time he sold, the stock price was $4, but by the end of the year, it had fallen to $1 a share.

Fleischer told reporters that Bush believed that he had complied with the law by filing an SEC Form 144, which alerted investors of his intention to sell the stock.

But Bush did not file a second document, SEC Form 4, until 34 weeks after the sale of the stock. U.S. securities law requires that corporate leaders at publicly traded firms report sales by the 10th day of the month following the sale.

Fleischer blamed the lawyers at Harken for not filing the second form. "It was a mix-up with the attorneys," he said.

But Fleischer later backed off his statement that it was the corporation's responsibility to file the form on behalf of its directors. Federal law says it's the responsibility of the director, not the company, to file the form.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

He was investiagated because he didn't fill out the necessary form, and when he did, he left the date off. Seem suspicious? So the fact that he had the lawyers' approval is irrelevant. It's a nice little sleight of hand, though.

And for the record, he has never 'beat the rap'. While the SEC chose not to pursue the case, in a letter to his lawyer, they said that the end of the investigation "<i>must in no way be construed as indicating that the party has been exonerated</i>."

(from the Washington Post)

Of course, this hasn't stopped Bush from saying that he was cleared.

Also, heck, look at how <i>he</i> contradicts himself:
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Despite Moore's pejorative that Bush "beat the rap," <b>no-one has ever found any evidence</b> suggesting that he engaged in illegal insider trading.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><b>Almost all</b> of the information that caused Harken's large quarterly loss developed only after Bush had sold the stock.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Um, if <i>any</i> information was available, Bush <i>would</i> have been aware of it, being on the board of directors and all--and he implies that this was so--so that would constitute 'evidence', now, wouldn't it?

illuminex · August 2004

Look, the point of this thread was simple: is Fahrenheit 911 a <i>fair</i> movie or not? It's not, by Moore's own admittance.

Since the film was not <i>fair</i> than it is also not a real documentary. That means that it is far likelier to have spin, propaganda, half-truths, etc, which it has been proven to have.

Moore is anti-Bush because he is a liberal. No ifs, ands, or buts.
Moore created an anti-Bush movie that was released several months away from a national election. Again, no ifs, ands, or buts.
Moore has a past history of using audience ignorance to further his point. Once again, no ifs, ands, or buts.

There is no need to even dig into the meat of the film after those three points, particularly when he says that his movie is not fair. The movie is made for a young audience that does not have a pro-Bush opinion. All of his films are made to motivate the young people of America to move left. That's his point. He's a political mastermind. Young people forget that fact, and just eat everything up that he says, without really questioning it.

Risiko · August 2004

The movie is a harsh critique of the current administration with a bias, a leaning, a slant.

While I would have much preferred if he had put this sort of disclaimer at the beginning of the movie, I see no harm in his exercise of free speech.

If anything, it provokes debate that many Americans usually do not take part in.

BathroomMonkey · August 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (illuminex @ Aug 6 2004, 05:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Look, the point of this thread was simple: is Fahrenheit 911 a <i>fair</i> movie or not? It's not, by Moore's own admittance.

Since the film was not <i>fair</i> than it is also not a real documentary. That means that it is far likelier to have spin, propaganda, half-truths, etc, which it has been proven to have.

Moore is anti-Bush because he is a liberal. No ifs, ands, or buts.
Moore created an anti-Bush movie that was released several months away from a national election. Again, no ifs, ands, or buts.
Moore has a past history of using audience ignorance to further his point. Once again, no ifs, ands, or buts.

There is no need to even dig into the meat of the film after those three points, particularly when he says that his movie is not fair. The movie is made for a young audience that does not have a pro-Bush opinion. All of his films are made to motivate the young people of America to move left. That's his point. He's a political mastermind. Young people forget that fact, and just eat everything up that he says, without really questioning it.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
So are the points he makes entirely without merit?

Does his partisanship automatically invalidate his premises?

I'm <i>all</i> for properly labeling him an agitprop filmmaker and dumping the confusing 'documentary maker' title.

However, if you feel that his bias automatically discredits his research, that's fine, but I'd hope you apply the same standards to the right's own formidible (to borrow a line from David Brock) noise machine.

illuminex · August 2004

It is not just his personal bias, it is also his past history of using audience ignorance on many issues to blatantly mislead young people. The right wing "noise machine" is not as formidable as you might think, particularly with the youth. Remember, older people are generally wiser and less likely to fall for simplistic things like what Moore offers the high schoolers and college students. That high schooler might think twice if he was 32, but he won't, since he's 17. Same with the college student.

Him calling the film a documentary when it is not only helps prove my point. He is simply using a new method of mass media to influence the easily influenced.

There is only one thing more dangerous than a half truth, and that is many half truths.

killswitch · August 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Risiko @ Aug 7 2004, 01:18 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> The movie is a harsh critique of the current administration with a bias, a leaning, a slant.

While I would have much preferred if he had put this sort of disclaimer at the beginning of the movie, I see no harm in his exercise of free speech.

If anything, it provokes debate that many Americans usually do not take part in.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Actually I disagree. People that don't debate about this sort of thing aren't generally informed to begin with; they are apathetic about the entire thing and conciously uninformed.

If they were to see only one side of the story, as in Moore's movie, it would not provoke debate. They would all walk out with hating Bush with no discourse whatsoever. A movie that would really cause debate would explore both sides of the issue and let the viewers decide for themselves afterwards. But such movies don't make for good entertainment or money, and I don't se Moore making one.

BathroomMonkey · August 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>It is not just his personal bias, it is also his past history of using audience ignorance on many issues to blatantly mislead young people. The right wing "noise machine" is not as formidable as you might think, particularly with the youth.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Or, as they can also be labeled, 'The people who aren't yet old enough to vote'.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Remember, older people are generally wiser and less likely to fall for simplistic things like what Moore offers the high schoolers and college students. That high schooler might think twice if he was 32, but he won't, since he's 17. Same with the college student. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

He could also vote if he was 32. Since he's 17, he can't.

Sure, this is oversimplification, but it's intended to show that your logic doesn't quite connect all the dots. Let's put it all together: In an attempt to swing this year's election, and deliver votes against Bush, Moore deliberately targets an impressionable group which contains a large percentage of people who are . . . too young to vote.

Why, that's just crazy enough to work!

Besides, you're not giving those impressionable young people as much credit as you did back in <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=75958&st=30' target='_blank'>this thread.</a>

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Sometimes people forget that high schoolers can and sometimes do think for themselves. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

*shrug*.

Want to see the Republican Noise Machine in action? Let's see how they disseminate the intentionally misleading 'first and fourth most liberal senators' mistruth.

<a href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/tv_shows/thedailyshowwithjonstewart/videos_corr.jhtml' target='_blank'>Talkin' Points.</a> Click on the 'Conventional Wisdom' link.

Total mainstream media saturation, with nary a counterpoint demonstrating the flawed logic of the claim. (Edit: In all fairness, that they don't show the counterpoints obviously does not necessarily mean that they weren't made. However, I've seen this point pushed quite a bit without incident, especially as part of radio show monologues where there <i>is</i> no forum to refute it). In my opinion, that's just as dangerous as anything Michael Moore puts out there.

(Note: If anyone wants to see why this claim is so misleading, I'd recommend <a href='http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh072904.shtml' target='_blank'>starting here.</a>

TheWizard · August 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BathroomMonkey @ Aug 5 2004, 06:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

So when the government took love away from Carlyle, they immediate started giving it right back.

Why, golly, I wonder why Kopel didn't mention that obvious and entirely relevant bit of information! I mean, he <b>must</b> respect his readers much more than that, because it's precisely the sort of thing he takes Moore to task over!

I am <i>quite</i> certain he left it out as an innocent oversight, and <i>not</i> because it completely contradicted his contradiction of Moore's account. Hmmmmmmmm . . .  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
I work for a defense company. Contracts are independant, cancellation of one and an award of another are two seperate entities.

In fact, parts of my company have been disciplined while others are commended within days of each other. Correlation does not equal causation.

BathroomMonkey · August 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Correlation does not equal causation.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Of course not. But it doesn't categorically dismiss it, either.

Fahrenheit 9/11

Comments