I found a good link called Fifty-nine Deceits in In Fahrenheit 9/11. This is probably one of the best counters to the "documentary" presented by Michael Moore.
The first 57 points are all informative, and generally show how full of shit Michael Moore is on most of his "facts". However, by points 58 and 59, which describe his connection to Hezbollah, I was boiling mad. This guy deserves a bullet in the head. He IS an enemy of the state.
Exactly how is he an enemy of the state? What has he done to harm it?
Re:How so?
djberg96 on 2004-09-08T19:01:19
He became an enemy of the state the moment his largely inaccurate film became both a recruiting tool and propaganda for Hezbollah via Front Row.And, as far as I'm concerned, anyone who likens the Iraqi insurgents as "the Minuteman of Iraq" is a putrid piece of shit.
Re:How so?
petdance on 2004-09-08T19:30:20
He became an enemy of the state the moment his largely inaccurate film became both a recruiting tool and propaganda for Hezbollah via Front Row.How is that his fault?
And, as far as I'm concerned, anyone who likens the Iraqi insurgents as "the Minuteman of Iraq" is a putrid piece of shit.
Since when does a "putrid piece of shit" require a "bullet in the head"? There's plenty of PPoSes in this country. That's one of the great things about it! You are FREE to be a PPoS!
Re:How so?
zatoichi on 2004-09-08T19:43:28
I am not sure if I should laugh at this exchange or make an answer to it.
I do emphatically believe that Mr. Moore told the "truth" as he wanted us to see it and not how it actually is.
I do also believe he is scum for the very fact that while overseas he spewed vile crap about the United States. He is no patriot. BUT, he is still entitled to that opinion. I served in the military to make sure that EVERYONE could speak out, regardless of whether they are a whack job or not.
Re:How so?
djberg96 on 2004-09-08T20:10:35
I do emphatically believe that Mr. Moore told the "truth" as he wanted us to see it and not how it actually is.There's a word for that - it's called "lying".
He is no patriot. BUT, he is still entitled to that opinion.
This is war, and when an opinion turns into a 2 hour movie, and distributed by Hezbollah (with the help of Michael Moore) as a recruiting and propaganda tool you have, in my opinion, exceeded the First Amendment's protection of "opinion" and crossed into enemy territory.
Re:How so?
zatoichi on 2004-09-08T21:26:32
Well, at least we agree he is scum.Re:How so?
phillup on 2004-09-09T00:10:14
This is war...
This is the problem I have with your argument.
Only congress can make a formal declaration of war.
Have they? (I certainly could not find it via google.)
Apparently some believe that the constitution is an anachronism and should no longer be followed.
It would certainly make things a bit easier (or, at least more legitimate) if it wasn't just one wacko (Bush) and his friends doing whatever the fsck they wanted.Re:How so?
zatoichi on 2004-09-09T01:51:20
And those "some" would be wrong! Our founding father's knew exactly what they were doing in creating a republic and not a democracy. Most of the people who advocate a change are socialist and not democratic.
This is war...
While there was no formal declaration of war, Congress overwhelmingly gave President Bush the authority to do what he did.
Re:How so?
phillup on 2004-09-09T00:17:05
There's a word for that - it's called "lying".
Yes... and when the previous president did it (yeah... I changed the subject from Moore to lying) they impeached him.
What should happen to a president that lies and causes the deaths of American citizens as a direct result of those lies?
(and... to get back on topic)
In my mind, what Bush has done is orders of magnitude worse that what Moore has done.
Take them both out of circulation...Re:How so?
zatoichi on 2004-09-09T01:58:01
You are crazy.
Do you really think that F911 isn't going to inspire some terrorists into action? Please, that is ignorance.
Re:How so?
phillup on 2004-09-09T02:14:00
Do you really think that F911 isn't going to inspire some terrorists into action?
Why would it? I saw it, but I most certainly must have missed the part you are talking about... If anything they should be laughing their ass off about how easily bushco was manipulated.
The majority of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia... and right now the country is on its hands and knees begging for a few more drops of oil so the price will go down a little before the next election.
Few, if any, of the terrorist that committed F911 have been dealt with. (not counting the actual members aboard the aircraft) Even the Taliban is still running around doing business.
That says more to terrorist than F911 ever will.
The terrorist found their motivation a long time before F911.
Unless by terrorist you mean some American taking things into their own hands and doing a "grassy knoll" on Bush.Re:How so?
zatoichi on 2004-09-09T02:17:22
Then I was right.Re:How so?
pudge on 2004-09-14T23:43:15
Few, if any, of the terrorist that committed F911 have been dealt with. (not counting the actual members aboard the aircraft) Even the Taliban is still running around doing business.
We've captured or killed most of the top men in both al Qaeda and the Taliban, and virtually destroyed their primary bases and cut off most of their primary funding.
Re:How so?
pudge on 2004-09-14T23:43:13
Yes... and when the previous president did it... they impeached him.
When he did it *under oath*, yes.
What should happen to a president that lies and causes the deaths of American citizens as a direct result of those lies?
You have two problems.
First, I've never seen proof Bush lied. I don't know what you are specifically referring to, but the most common thing stated is WMD. Just because he got it wrong does not mean he lied.
Second, the war was going to happen regardless of any one of the specific things stated supporting war, so saying that his "lies" were the direct cause of deaths is not reasonable... unless you contend he lied to get the Joint Resolution in Congress that authorized him to use force against Iraq. Re:How so?
petdance on 2004-09-08T21:15:48
I'm not sure how "no patriot" applies. M-W says "patriot" means "one who loves his or her country and supports its authority and interests". I don't see that questioning the validity of the war in Iraq as non-patriotic. I'd say the war in Iraq undermines our authority and interests in many cases.Re:How so?
djberg96 on 2004-09-08T20:04:22
How is that his fault?Read the article.
Since when does a "putrid piece of shit" require a "bullet in the head"?
I'm not sure what world you live in Andy, but in my world if you cheer for the enemy troops while denigrating your own, you have crossed into the enemy encampment. In such a position it is implicit that you hope for their success (killing US troops and pro-Democracy Iraqis) while also hoping for our failure (the death of US troops).
Re:I think...
djberg96 on 2004-09-08T19:18:31
Instead... I suggest burning a bit of karma on slashdot's new politics section.Oh, I didn't even notice. Thanks.
:)
Whilst I do not have the time to do an in-depth investigation into each piece, I did investigate the first few.
This author tries to suggest that Moore is "responding" to his rebuttal of the movie, when in fact he has just gone through the points that Michael Moore has published on his site, and collected as much circumstantial evidence and half mentions of opposite opinions as he can, and put them into a single article.
For some of the issues, as for the incorrect result projection on election night, both "sides" have published documentation from television networks to back up their claims. Who is to say which is true? Do you have any real evidence to say either way, or are you speculating based on an opinion you already hold?
Some of the claims in the article are so sketchy it's funny. For example, one of his sources of information, is a CNN transcript (marked " THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT" of a Sunday Morning News broadcast, of another CNN broadcast), that vaguely mentions that a historian said that protests happened when Nixon took office in 1969.
Hmm, maybe that historian was confused about the protests in 1973 in response to the Vietnam war? I certainly don't know, but linking to an article like that is not what I call research.
Let's face it - these matters are rarely about the details. The fact of the matter is that Bush, who has strong, on the record ties to the global industromilitary complex and oil industry, takes office, turns a budget surplus into a massive budget deficit, makes policy changes that make millions of his countrymen unemployed, invades a country without presenting any clear evidence at all
History will not look very kindly upon George W. Bush's autocratic reign of terror.
Re:Interesting rebuttal, shame about the facts
djberg96 on 2004-09-08T23:07:16
Do you have any real evidence to say either way, or are you speculating based on an opinion you already hold?Actually, the election results of 2000 were the initial reason I had no desire to see this film. We 've all been there, done that. Seems like a very pointless, boring rehash of finger pointing.
What I find the most amusing about the whole thing, though, is the notion that declaring Gore the winner prematurely is "unbiased journalism", while declaring Bush the winner prematurely is "a right wing plot by Fox News to swing votes".
History will not look very kindly upon George W. Bush's autocratic reign of terror.
Let's not get melodramatic. I don't love the guy or anything, and I suspect portions of the Patriot Act will be struck down eventually. I think his presidency will ultimately be judged by success or failure in Iraq.
Re:Interesting rebuttal, shame about the facts
mugwumpjism on 2004-09-08T23:47:21
the notion that declaring Gore the winner prematurely is "unbiased journalism", while declaring Bush the winner prematurely is "a right wing plot by Fox News to swing votes".Again, details. I find amusing the notion that a court decided the result in a so-called "democracy". Why not go to the polls again? Makes a farce of the whole process, really.
I think his presidency will ultimately be judged by success or failure in Iraq.You make it sound like Iraq wasn't a complete failure already. How could it have been worse?
Re:Interesting rebuttal, shame about the facts
djberg96 on 2004-09-09T00:50:46
I find amusing the notion that a court decided the result in a so-called "democracy".No, a court upheld the result. No need to go to the polls twice. The votes were counted. Gore challenged. He lost.
You make it sound like Iraq wasn't a complete failure already. How could it have been worse?
Nation building takes time, especially with a bunch of whackos destroying the infrastructure you're trying to build. I'm not ready to declare it a failure YET.
Re:Interesting rebuttal, shame about the facts
pudge on 2004-09-15T00:00:43
Again, details. I find amusing the notion that a court decided the result in a so-called "democracy". Why not go to the polls again? Makes a farce of the whole process, really.
They did not decide the result, they ruled on a disagreement about the law in how the result should be determined. Who else should do this, if not the courts? Do you prefer rioting in the streets to determine whose interpretation of the laws is the correct one?
We are a nation of laws. When we disagree, we look to the laws and their primary authority, the courts. This is how it has always worked, how it worked in 2000, and how it must continue to work, if laws have any meaning at all.
Really, what would you have preferred?
You make it sound like Iraq wasn't a complete failure already.
It isn't. It's actually going better than I expected; I thought we would not be this close to elections for a long time. Of course, we have yet to have them, and they will likely be delayed, but we're getting closer than I thought. On the other hand, our efforts in getting the Iraqi military and police up and running are moving slower than I expected. Well, nothing's perfect.Re:Interesting rebuttal, shame about the facts
pudge on 2004-09-14T23:57:29
The fact of the matter is that Bush, who has strong, on the record ties to the global industromilitary complex and oil industry, takes office, turns a budget surplus into a massive budget deficit, makes policy changes that make millions of his countrymen unemployed, invades a country without presenting any clear evidence at all...
It's odd you use "fact' to describe those things.
Yes, it is fact he has ties to large companies. That is not a bad thing in any way.
No, it is not fact that he turned a surplus into a deficit. Sorry. Bush inherited a recessive economy (it began in March 2001, before any of his policies had a chance to take effect, due to market forces that were underway a full year earlier). This recession led directly to the deficit we saw in the 2002 budget.
That's not to say he deserves none of the blame for the high deficit, but he didn't create it: it was coming regardless, unless he chose to drastically cut spending on discretionary spending, in which case you would be accusing him of taking school lunch programs away from the children.
No, it is not a fact that his policies made millions of his countrymen unemployed. The massive layoffs we've seen began in the spring of 2000, almost a year before he took office. We saw positive population growth except for small blips throughout 96-99, but in May 2000 we lost 653K jobs, and in July, 407K. Employment growth was moderate for the rest of the year, but the stock market was coming down fast, and it was clear we were headed for recession before year's end.
In Feb 2001, we lost 209K jobs. The recession began in March, and then in April, we lost 463K jobs. Then it kep tumbling as we fought off the recession and 9/11.
No, it is not a fact that there was no clear evidence at all. We know for a fact Iraq harbored terrorists. We know for a fact Hussein had plans to harm us and his other neighbors. We know for a fact he was murdering his own people by the thousands. We know for a fact he regularly attacked our pilots. There's more, of course. You may not find this evidence convincing, but please don't pretend it does not exist.
History will not look very kindly upon George W. Bush's autocratic reign of terror.
Given your -- to be kind -- imperfect analyis of the situation, I don't find much interesting in your conclusion.
