Fahrenheit 9/11

[Arne]

Has any one seen the film? And what do you think of it?

Please be calm try to explain your position to the others, because otherwise their will not be any real duscussion.

P.S.: What do you think of that:

The cabel tv transmitter "In Demand" had signed a contract with Michael Moore, which sad that they would show Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 in the night before election. The programm should've been shown for the price of $9,95. But somebody (who do you think it was...?) put pressure on the "In Demand" management, and now they won't show it!

That's breach of contract in my eyes and I think that it's not a democratic system anymore, when the government can manipulate the media in such ways!

[seal614]

um. I'm sure a handful of people here have seen it... the other 75% spent their time reading Mein Kampf instead. (It had more overall political value for the time we spent reading it).

So who killed the In Demand deal? Bush sent a letter or something? I guess "The Man" is keeping Michael Moore down. Maybe if Marshmallow Moore didn't slut himself and his crock of lies so hard people would give him a chance in their eyes, on cable, etc...

- Brian

[Arne]

He even offered the film to an konservative programm for free! So what about "slut himself"...

Go a few miles to canada and you will see people giving this film standing ovations!

[reeds]

yep- seen it and recommended it to many people- who have all watched it too...gotta get the word out- and fast

[Lvubun1]

Let me just sum up all the future replies in this thread just to save everybody some time.

Fat, maggot, lies, hamburgers, un-american.

Go ahead and lock this baby.

[kg_veteran]

I don't see any reason to lock the thread.

I haven't seen the movie, and I don't intend to. I've read more than enough about the movie to know exactly what it is -- anti-Bush propaganda. There have been many thorough reviews which reveal just how deceitful and manipulative the movie is. With that, there really is no justification to waste even a couple of hours of my life on it.

[chumdawg]

I admit that curiosity got the best of me. I ordered it on Netflix, and it came today. I hope to have a chance to watch it tonight.

If the reviews I've read are true, then I think it's important that I know exactly what's going on this film so that I can discuss it intelligently with those poor souls who have taken in by it.

[Arne]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran
I don't see any reason to lock the thread.

I haven't seen the movie, and I don't intend to. I've read more than enough about the movie to know exactly what it is -- anti-Bush propaganda. There have been many thorough reviews which reveal just how deceitful and manipulative the movie is. With that, there really is no justification to waste even a couple of hours of my life on it.

Don't you think the reviews are maybe manipulative as well?

And the "I haven't seen it, but I can judge it" attidude is quite suspect to me...

[seal614]

Arne, using my earlier comparison.

What do you think Mein Kampf is.... maybe overflowing w/propaganda?

Have you ever read it cover to cover? If so, kudos, but I doubt it.

- Brian

[Road Rage]

And the "I haven't seen it, but I can judge it" attidude is quite suspect to me...

I've never seen "Triumph of the Will". Would I be incorrect if I labeled it as Nazi propaganda?

Why are we even discussing a movie whose content has been so thuroughly debunked as F9/11? Why don't we just talk about the 60 Minutes NG doccumnets instead? They're just as credible as Moore's work.

Moorewatch

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: Arne

Don't you think the reviews are maybe manipulative as well?

And the "I haven't seen it, but I can judge it" attidude is quite suspect to me...

No, I don't think the reviews are manipulative; they come from all areas of the political spectrum.

[dude1394]

I didn't see the propaganda from Goebbels either.... Don't plan to give the maggot a penny.

[Arne]

I'm from Germany and other than the Nazi-Generation, who had "Mein Kampf" in place of the bible, did I actually read it.

You all really have a big, big, big problem, if you compare Moore to Hitler! You guys are just sick.

Moore wouldn't start any single war and he wouldn't send Americans in such a war. And he - other than George W. Bush - wouldn't have only one or two political priorities, like Bush has (fighting the criminals (like in Dallas) and making war). He would rather think about environmental protection and he would get himself informed about his economy and wouldn't support his election campaign donors by lowering the fees for only the rich people...
But first of all, he would take a look over the edge of the plate and wouldn't ignore all non-American, who are laughing about America under the Bush-Government - or in the worst case scenario crying because of it.

If you don't get it now, you will never get it: George W. Bush has ruined everything that was built up by former presidents of the USA, overseas.

There are people in every single european country, who demonstrate against Bush, and this "So Kerry was right..."-thread was just embarrasing, because most of the leftist in europe are holding posters up that say "Terrorist Number One - George W. Bush", or "Saddam And Bush - please make a one on one godcha with real weapons".

Every single leftist in Europe would take Kerry instead of Bush, that's for sure!

[mavsman55]

Boohoo. Bush is ruining Clinton's work. What a shame.

[img]i/expressions/moon.gif[/img]

[Arne]

Considering what he did for the USA's foreign politics, that really is a shame.

So please, come back, when you have something to contribute. Otherwise don't bother posting in this thread.

[MavKikiNYC]

Originally posted by: Arne
Considering what he did for the USA's foreign politics, that really is a shame.

So please, come back, when you have something to contribute. Otherwise don't bother posting in this thread.

Are you referring to the bombing of the aspirin factory?

Or how Clinton enhanced the U.S.'s image by being the recipient of a blow job in the oval office while U.S. troops risked their lives participating in the bombing of Bosnia?

Or how he foolishly negotiated with Arafat, taking that murderous liar at his word, and actually treating him as a statesman?

Or how Clinton compromised U.S. national security by abjectly failing to meaningfully engage global terrorism following the first attack on the WTC, and the subsequent attacks on U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania?

Or how he three times refused to take Bin Laden into custody despite having him offered on a silver platter by the Somalians?

And let's not even discuss Clinton's cuts to defense and intelligence.

Yeah, it's a real shame that President Bush has had to expend so much political capital cleaning up the damage and negelect done to U.S. national security by the liar, adulterer, impeachee, and probable criminal Clinton.

Ýou don't know what you're talking about, Adolf. And all of this Moore-crap has been discussed before, so go back and check the threads and then MAYBE come back when YOU have something worthwhile to discuss.

I've had it with ignoramus leftist, anti-American, anti-Semite Europeans presuming to lecture Americans about who best represents their interests at home and abroad.

Véte a la puta-phuckin' mierda, Krautero. Oh and BTW, thank you and good luck.

Every single leftist in Europe would take Kerry instead of Bush, that's for sure!

I wish they would. ...... I wish they would.

[seal614]

I think Arne has opened up himself to a bit too much criticism...

Should we start w/the fact that his opinions are based on Michael Moore's??

Hey Arne guess what? I can prove to you that I'm closely tied to Bush... Bush, Bin Laden and I get together sometimes to pound beers and yell at chicks. Then we roll up $100 bills from our rich friends and smoke them. Or did Moore already "prove" all of this? After that Bin Laden sometimes will truck in a few hundred barrels of crude oil to the white house and we call it a night.

- Brian

[Murphy3]

I rented a copy with the soul purpose of urinating on it....I then promptly returned it to blockbuster.

[Arne]

Originally posted by: MavKikiNYC

Are you referring to the bombing of the aspirin factory?

Or how Clinton enhanced the U.S.'s image by being the recipient of a blow job in the oval office while U.S. troops risked their lives participating in the bombing of Bosnia?

Or how he foolishly negotiated with Arafat, taking that murderous liar at his word, and actually treating him as a statesman?

Or how Clinton compromised U.S. national security by abjectly failing to meaningfully engage global terrorism following the first attack on the WTC, and the subsequent attacks on U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania?

Or how he three times refused to take Bin Laden into custody despite having him offered on a silver platter by the Somalians?

And let's not even discuss Clinton's cuts to defense and intelligence.

Yeah, it's a real shame that President Bush has had to expend so much political capital cleaning up the damage and negelect done to U.S. national security by the liar, adulterer, impeachee, and probable criminal Clinton.

Ýou don't know what you're talking about, Adolf. And all of this Moore-crap has been discussed before, so go back and check the threads and then MAYBE come back when YOU have something worthwhile to discuss.

I've had it with ignoramus leftist, anti-American, anti-Semite Europeans presuming to lecture Americans about who best represents their interests at home and abroad.

Véte a la puta-phuckin' mierda, Krautero. Oh and BTW, thank you and good luck.

I wish they would. ...... I wish they would.

It speaks for your foolishness, when you call me Adolf. That's just from the bottom of the deck. But hey, if you think you've got to insult me like that...it speaks for itself...

Do you really think, it's a thing of foreign policy, when he gets he gets a blowjob? No matter at what point in time...

"Or how he foolishly negotiated with Arafat, taking that murderous liar at his word, and actually treating him as a statesman?"

Why is Arafat always the bad guy, while meanwhile Sharon kills innocent people all the time and ignores UN resolutions! And UN resolutions were being taken by the US government, to justify the Iraq war... I don't get it... how is this possible?

"I've had it with ignoramus leftist, anti-American, anti-Semite Europeans presuming to lecture Americans about who best represents their interests at home and abroad."

The ignoramus person in here are you. Only because I critisice your system doesn't mean, that I have something against the people living in the USA. But you're just intollerant, if you can't take any opinion other than yours, when it's critiszing.

You've already called me an anti-Semite and Adolf. That's really weak, because I'm first of all a leftist, and second of all trying to look at the Israel-Palestina conflict objective. that'S something you can't do, because you take any critisism on America or Israel as either anti-American or anti-Semite...!

[Arne]

"I rented a copy with the soul purpose of urinating on it....I then promptly returned it to blockbuster. "


Wow, you're a right hero...

[Murphy3]

Actually, I lean to the left.....I just don't lean towards the spineless John Kerry or the habitual liar in Michael Moore.

[Arne]

Yeah, but why don't you chose the - in European leftists opinion - lesser evil?

[Murphy3]

I don't see the 'evil' in Bush. Yes, I may disagree with some of his policies, but I do not see the 'evil'. I do see the 'evil' in Kerry. He is a man that appears willing to do any and everything to keep everyone happy. That is incredibly dangerous in my opinion. A leader that is unwilling to take a stand on anything is not a leader. I'm sorry, but in the world today, the U.S. cannot afford to have someone with such poor character in the White House. The world cannot afford for the U.S. to have the chronically spineless John Kerry in the WHouse. As someone that leans to the left, I willing to vote Republican just to do my part to help insure that Kerry does not come into power.

[kg_veteran]

Why is Arafat always the bad guy, while meanwhile Sharon kills innocent people all the time and ignores UN resolutions! And UN resolutions were being taken by the US government, to justify the Iraq war... I don't get it... how is this possible?

Why is Arafat always the bad guy? I guess the next thing you'll ask is why bin Laden always gets such a bum rap, right? What a friggin' joke.

[Arne]

Did George W. Bush have some "character" before September 11? Not really, he had the reputation of being a spare time president and spent a really big part of his time on his ranch...
Kerry will have the more leftistic party behind him, so why shouldn't you vote for him? Or do you really think that the whole Bush politics are coming from his mind? ...remember the way he speaks his native language...

[Arne]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran

Why is Arafat always the bad guy? I guess the next thing you'll ask is why bin Laden always gets such a bum rap, right? What a friggin' joke.

Why don't you look at my facts (UN resolutions)... You're just pathetic.

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: Arne
Did George W. Bush have some "character" before September 11? Not really, he had the reputation of being a spare time president and spent a really big part of his time on his ranch...

I find it difficult to listen to a German talk about what Bush's pre-9/11 reputation was. I don't presume to talk about how Schroeder is viewed by Germans.

[seal614]

Originally posted by: Arne
Did George W. Bush have some "character" before September 11? Not really, he had the reputation of being a spare time president and spent a really big part of his time on his ranch...

lol once again your entire argument is based on Michael Moore? Moore says he's lazy and spent x days on his ranch... except that entire segment has been completely torn apart. I can't believe you're basing your opinions on this man's, and focusing on the most insignificant topics. Grow up and expose yourself to some real politics, not just a fat asshole spewing lies.

- Brian

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: Arne

Why don't you look at my facts (UN resolutions)... You're just pathetic.

I'm pathetic? Why, because I deal in reality?

You're apparently not a student of even recent history. Arafat is a terrorist. For you to try and draw a comparison between Sharon and Arafat is absolutely laughable, but it is informative regarding your worldview.

[Drbio]

Has knowitall come back as Arne?


The bottom line is that I don't give a crap what europe has to say about how we run OUR country. Tough crap. I wanta guy like Bush who will absolutely and without hesitation defend this country when needed, not when some european committee thinks it is ok.

[Arne]

Originally posted by: seal614

lol once again your entire argument is based on Michael Moore? Moore says he's lazy and spent x days on his ranch... except that entire segment has been completely torn apart. I can't believe you're basing your opinions on this man's, and focusing on the most insignificant topics. Grow up and expose yourself to some real politics, not just a fat asshole spewing lies.

- Brian

As you can read in the post of a.weidner in the other of my two topics, Germans aren't necesarilly taking their opinions from Michael Moore!
Their are many different sources the problem is just that tere aren't that much in the USA... I mean Fox-News is just embarrassing.

@kg...
So you can't reply to my UN resolution argument... That's hard to believe...

[Arne]

Originally posted by: Drbio
Has knowitall come back as Arne?


The bottom line is that I don't give a crap what europe has to say about how we run OUR country. Tough crap. I wanta guy like Bush who will absolutely and without hesitation defend this country when needed, not when some european committee thinks it is ok.

Funny, that you call UN a european committee...

And it's not my problem, when you think, that Iraq wars will defend your country. Because in fact most of the children of those Iraqi who got/get killed, will turn into aggressive terrorists and in 20 years America will have a much bigger problem, than they already have.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: Arne
@kg...
So you can't reply to my UN resolution argument... That's hard to believe...

Please, what exactly is your "UN resolution argument"? That there are UN resolutions? That they have been ineffective in resolving the situation? Just what are your "arguments"?

[Arne]

That Iraq gets invaded because they break UN resolutions, while the Israeli can ignore them. That's not logical.

[Drbio]

Originally posted by: Mavdog

Please, what exactly is your "UN resolution argument"? That there are UN resolutions? That they have been ineffective in resolving the situation? Just what are your "arguments"?

Exactly.

[kg_veteran]

@kg...
So you can't reply to my UN resolution argument... That's hard to believe...

Since the UN passes a lot of resolutions condemning Israel every year, I guess you're going to have to be more specific about which resolutions you're talking about.

[Arne]

I'm talking about all the resolutions. Israel has broken 70 so far and the USA were supported in front of the UN in 20 of these cases.

Here the link: http://www.pfui.ch/01a9c2929a1126301...dc11de401.html

Unfortunately it's written in German, but it says the numbers, so you can search for them on the 'net.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: Arne
That Iraq gets invaded because they break UN resolutions, while the Israeli can ignore them. That's not logical.

If I recall correctly, there have been a plethora of resolutions passed relative to the Israeli/Palestinian situation, and the vast majority have been ignored.

Should Israel follow the reolutions that call for it to cease their expansion into occupied lands? That I agree.

There have been resolutions against the use of suicide bombers in civilian areas...are they followed?

There have been resolutions for the establishment of the rule of law by the PA...are they followed?

What you are asking is why certain resolutions are adhered to while others are not? I would suggest it depends on if by following those reolutions Israel's need for security is compromised. Can you justify Israel following a resolution and putting itself in danger of attack? Certainly no rational person would expect that to occur.

[Arne]

That's your thought about it, but don't you have to admit, that Israel were to get an enormous support from the western civilisation if they would follow the resolutions? - Would it have to really fear Palestina, if they were supported by the UN and their "big brother" USA?

And another question is, why should Palestinia follow the resolution, when Israel has broken a lot of them before they did?

However, it's nothing knew, that enemies of the USA are being dealed with in another way, than the rest of he world.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: Arne
That's your thought about it, but don't you have to admit, that Israel were to get an enormous support from the western civilisation if they would follow the resolutions? - Would it have to really fear Palestina, if they were supported by the UN and their "big brother" USA?

And another question is, why should Palestinia follow the resolution, when Israel has broken a lot of them before they did?

However, it's nothing knew, that enemies of the USA are being dealed with in another way, than the rest of he world.

Until they Palestinians disavow the use of terrorism- in deeds, in true actions- Israel is justified in ensuring the security of its people. If that means ignoring UN resolutions sobeit, those who vote for those resolutions do not have the sober reality of facing attacks from demented suicidal people who target civilians.

I do not wish to take the position that Israel does not share in part of the fault for the current situation for it does. If they had pursued a course of not settling the occupied lands it would be much easier to disengage today.

However, let's not be distracted by the fact that the scourge of terrorism has its roots in the refusal of the Arabic country's refusal to recognise the right of Israel to exist, and the refusal to negotiate with Israel a comphrehensive peace agreement over 30 years ago.