Official....Review of Fahrenheit 9/11

[Lyfer]

Good flick.

 

[Ranger X]

Originally posted by: Muse

Originally posted by: Shelly21

Originally posted by: KC5AV
Can you say lawsuit?

I wondered how long it would take for this to happen.

You really can't copyright a title. I don't think.

Ray Bradbury has just made an ass of himself for piping up and complaining that MM lifted his title from his novel "Fahrenheit 451." The fool should have accepted it as good publicity. I've never thought much of RB, and used to be very very into science fiction novels, short stories, etc. These days I'm into too many other things to read SF much. I don't think I ever read any RB that impressed me. Boring compared to Heinlein, Clarke, lots and lots of other people. Now, if MM had stolen significant material from one of his novels, BB might have grounds for a suit. But what he's done with the title? Ridiculous!

Yeah, what an idiot. Fahrenheit 9/11 != Fahrenheit 451. Accord to RB, no one can use the word "Fahrenheit" in anything following a number? I agree. He should thank MM for the free publicity.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Chumster

Originally posted by: Mill

2. One Congressman he interviewed already said his interview was edited so that it appeared differently than what occurred.

Could you give a name and link? Really interested in who this is.

Thanks!

Chum

I've posted a link. Read the whole thread.

 

[DigDug]

parody. Vic. parody.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: gururu

Originally posted by: Mill

1. Good for you. I'll consider it a capitulation.

2. Eh, whatever. Use proper English, or at least try to have some grammatical sense. I'm only insulting you because you seem to enjoy insulting me. I'm not at all following what you are replying to here. Please elaborate.

3. Ok, so an Op-Ed piece by someone who admittedly agrees with his politics is completely valid? I never said a documentary couldn't present an opinion, but I did say it can't lie and mislead people. Moore's bias caused him to create an unethical film. Perhaps you should re-read my post again. Even MOORE himself has said that the film is not a documentary. He did a shoddy job of tying up ends, but rather gave his opinion and some supposed facts. Then he tried to slyly lead you to a conclusion.

4. Uh... 1983-1998(what that value is based on) is more relevant than information from the past 4 years. Ok.......... I'm going to have to say you're high. 9/11 was at the end of 2001, and recent stress with the Saudis have been over the past 3 years or so.

Regardless neither you nor Moore have given any evidence it influenced anything. Entirely circumstantial, and built on the idea that the Saudis would take the financial hit just to punish America. They care about their money too you know. I actually do believe that they would be unable to withdraw that money, and that the US could easily freeze/seize it if so inclined.

5. Say whatever you want about the brevity of my arguments. I'm not simpleminded enough to just post rhetoric and think it is substantive. I don't have to experience poverty to have an opinion of it, nor did you rebut what I said. You called it ignorant and then used fallacious reasoning in another attempt to undermine my credibility. You also said "...fail the 5th grade for lack of insight or originality." I have to honestly laugh out loud at that. Brevity and ad-hominem is hardly the mark of a keen mind. All my points were original in nature. Care to back up your claim that I wasn't original. Who exactly are you saying I copied or ripped off? As for insight -- it would behoove you to point out where I lacked insight or originality. Endless attacks without a substantive rebuttal just show how weak of a debater you are. You seem to be unable to reply to well-formulated arguments, so please bow out of this thread. Let the big boys discuss the film.

Finally, s decent sized response.

2. I hope last nights sleep cleared your mind. What I was insinuating was that you were so stuck on having your point made, that you said it over and over and over.....and yet you criticize Moore. Hypocritical?

3.Unethical? Misleading? Lies? But you believe Moore when he says its not a documentary? You are very selective with what you believe.

4. Lets get back on the main point and let me spell it out for you. You've conceded in a previous post that all you were trying to say was that Moore's 7% figure was exaggerated. I was merely pointing out that your 2% figure was based on an alternate set of data and as likely to be wrong. Then you change your figure to 2.5%. You are right he is lying, yet you obviously used numbers without knowing the specifics of how they were derived? That is why I provided a link to a report (Wolff, 2000) that supports its total wealth estimate. You blame Moore for flippantly reporting values. You are doing the same. Hypocritical?

5. "I don't have to experience poverty to have an opinion of it"
You are not ignorant because you have an opinion. You are ignorant because you haven't experienced it.
Being able to speak succinctly and concisely about facts and opinions is key in debating. You seem to be learning as reflected by the length of your last response. You've provided little insight or originality into this argument. You repeatedly say Moore is lying without providing a single instance of substantiated proof. You complain, you insult ("Just the kind of voter that would find this film to be great. Obviously someone who says "SUX" and not "sucks." Truly the marks of a highly educated adult who has given his choice in 2004 much thought. I commend you. "), you spout untruths, you claim to know what you have not experienced, and you use an excess of dribble to reiterate your points over and over. Like I said, it is very juvenile, as children also seem to think that complaining, insulting, lying, and pretending are all ways to get what they want.
,

You're entirely delusional. Evidently you aren't reading my posts, but the posts of someone else.

 

[gururu]

Originally posted by: Mill


You're entirely delusional. Evidently you aren't reading my posts, but the posts of someone else.

probably someone who needed a good night's sleep. :beer:

 

[Finnkc]

lol ...

I haven't seen it yet and I already can't wait to see it. Something that causes this much bickering and slander of political views must be good!

btw ... BfC was a very good movie ... what you make of it is irrelevant to the subject and points it brings to the table.

 

[chibchakan]

Originally posted by: MAME

Originally posted by: cheezy321
finally this thread is actually getting some educated debates in here. No more flaming each other, you all are using actual facts to back up what your saying.

Anyways, I havent seen the movie yet, but i am downloading it right now and will let you all know how i feel

don't pirate it dumb butt

Michael Moore doesn't mind. (Right Click & Save Target As)






:thumbsup:

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: chibchakan

Originally posted by: MAME

Originally posted by: cheezy321
finally this thread is actually getting some educated debates in here. No more flaming each other, you all are using actual facts to back up what your saying.

Anyways, I havent seen the movie yet, but i am downloading it right now and will let you all know how i feel

don't pirate it dumb butt

Michael Moore doesn't mind. (Right Click & Save Target As)






:thumbsup:

Too bad Michael Moore doesn't own the full rights. He can't change the legality of it.

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: BaboonGuy

Originally posted by: Karsten
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/?GT1=3584

Quote of the final wrap for thouse who don't have the patience to read the whole thing:

If Michael Moore had had his way, Slobodan Milosevic would still be the big man in a starved and tyrannical Serbia. Bosnia and Kosovo would have been cleansed and annexed. If Michael Moore had been listened to, Afghanistan would still be under Taliban rule, and Kuwait would have remained part of Iraq. And Iraq itself would still be the personal property of a psychopathic crime family, bargaining covertly with the slave state of North Korea for WMD. You might hope that a retrospective awareness of this kind would induce a little modesty. To the contrary, it is employed to pump air into one of the great sagging blimps of our sorry, mediocre, celeb-rotten culture. Rock the vote, indeed.

Hm what an unbiased review! I don't think the guy realizes that there are other methods to solve problems other than war.

Clearly you're right. Slobodan is a resonable man, we just needed to sit down with him and talk things out.

Slobodan: Yeah, I want to kill all those other ethnicities.
US: No, please don't. That's real bad.
Slob: Well, I'm not going to lie to you, I still plan on doing it.
US: Well, we object heavily and would like to further insist you not do that.
Slob: Your objections are noted. Now hurry up and get out of here before I cleanse you too.

 

[TheWart]

To be honest, I have not seen the movie, and am not sure I am going to.

I have read most of "Dude, Where's My Country," and have read quite a few reviews of this movie, so I know most of what is said. I just want to point out two things that he apparently harps on in the movie are not what he makes them out to be.

- Unocal oil deal. Firstly, Unocal explored building a pipeline right after the fall of the USSR, and Afghanistan was the most logical place to do so. So Unocal, with the blessing of the State Department (under Clinton, *not* Bush), made quite a few trips out to meet with the Taliban. They tried to persuade them that the Unocal deal would be beneficial for them and also mentioned a few times that it would be good for PR to extradite OBL. Well, Unocal never really got anywhere, and as the relationship between US/Pakistan and the Taliban detiorated over OBL, Unocal just dropped the idea.

- Bush's family ties to the House of Saud. Yes, the House of Saud is extremely corrupt and extravagant for the most part, but the Bush's are *not* alone in befriending them. It was Prince Al-Turki (the Saudi intelligence head) who during the Afghan resistance (begining in '79) became very close partners with the CIA, and consequently, the House of Saud became *major* partners with subsequent US administrations (Reagan, Bush, Clinton...).

I don't want to take anymore time, but I *highly* reccomend the book, Ghost Wars. It was written very recently, and is extremely long. However, it is the most detailed book I have read on the Afghan war, and how it shaped Afghanistan and influenced OBL and Al Queda. Too bad Michael Moore seems not to have read it.

 

[Pepsei]

Originally posted by: TheWart
To be honest, I have not seen the movie, and am not sure I am going to.

I have read most of "Dude, Where's My Country," and have read quite a few reviews of this movie, so I know most of what is said. I just want to point out two things that he apparently harps on in the movie are not what he makes them out to be.

- Unocal oil deal. Firstly, Unocal explored building a pipeline right after the fall of the USSR, and Afghanistan was the most logical place to do so. So Unocal, with the blessing of the State Department (under Clinton, *not* Bush), made quite a few trips out to meet with the Taliban. They tried to persuade them that the Unocal deal would be beneficial for them and also mentioned a few times that it would be good for PR to extradite OBL. Well, Unocal never really got anywhere, and as the relationship between US/Pakistan and the Taliban detiorated over OBL, Unocal just dropped the idea.

In the movie, they showed that after the appointment of the new prime minister in Afghanistan, the deal was approved, and that the new prime minister used to be a former employee of Unocal Correct me if I'm wrong.

- Bush's family ties to the House of Saud. Yes, the House of Saud is extremely corrupt and extravagant for the most part, but the Bush's are *not* alone in befriending them. It was Prince Al-Turki (the Saudi intelligence head) who during the Afghan resistance (begining in '79) became very close partners with the CIA, and consequently, the House of Saud became *major* partners with subsequent US administrations (Reagan, Bush, Clinton...).

I don't want to take anymore time, but I *highly* reccomend the book, Ghost Wars. It was written very recently, and is extremely long. However, it is the most detailed book I have read on the Afghan war, and how it shaped Afghanistan and influenced OBL and Al Queda. Too bad Michael Moore seems not to have read it.

I read Stupid White Man, what a worthless piece of trash. Too much rant that It overpowered the good stuff (I don't remember the good stuff). I do like the movie thou.

 

[TheWart]

Originally posted by: Pepsei

Originally posted by: TheWart
To be honest, I have not seen the movie, and am not sure I am going to.

I have read most of "Dude, Where's My Country," and have read quite a few reviews of this movie, so I know most of what is said. I just want to point out two things that he apparently harps on in the movie are not what he makes them out to be.

- Unocal oil deal. Firstly, Unocal explored building a pipeline right after the fall of the USSR, and Afghanistan was the most logical place to do so. So Unocal, with the blessing of the State Department (under Clinton, *not* Bush), made quite a few trips out to meet with the Taliban. They tried to persuade them that the Unocal deal would be beneficial for them and also mentioned a few times that it would be good for PR to extradite OBL. Well, Unocal never really got anywhere, and as the relationship between US/Pakistan and the Taliban detiorated over OBL, Unocal just dropped the idea.

In the movie, they showed that after the appointment of the new prime minister in Afghanistan, the deal was approved, and that the new prime minister used to be a former employee of Unocal Correct me if I'm wrong.

Are you referring to Hamad Karzai?

I think I remember him being a point man for Unocal, but I don't think he was a full fledged employee. Heck, the Unocal deal was good for Afghanistan anyway, but that is beside the point. The situation in Afghanistan was so murky, and I think can best be described by the 'wheels within wheels' quote from Dune. I mean, Karzai used to be loosely allied with the forces loyal to the Taliban, until they said they would kill him and he had to join Massoud (head of Northern Alliance killed days before 9-11 to prevent US from having a good base to attack OBL).

 

[Pepsei]

Yeah, let me correct myself, I meant the head of the state for Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, formerly served as a UNOCAL consultant. Only nine days after Karzai's ascension, President Bush nominated another UNOCAL consultant and former Taliban defender, Zalmay Khalilzad, as his special envoy to Afghanistan.

 

[etech]

Pepsei

What is the state of the forests in Afghanistan?

How might a source of natual gas help the Afghani people?

What is the jobless situation in Afghainstan?

How might a pipeline help the situation with training and employment?

What is the income of Afghanistan?

How might revenues from a pipeline help the national economy of Afghanistan?

Is Unocal involved in any way with the pipeline that is now being proposed?


Why didn't Moore address any of these questions?

 

[Pepsei]

etech,

I think the pipeline is a good thing, regardless of who is behind it, hey, even Clinton liked it.

Right now, if you are in the business of energy, you can stand to make a lot of money there.

Just pointing out the link for TheWart.

 

[etech]

So what point was Moore trying to make?

It doesn't seem that he brought out how much Afghanistan and Pakistan and India would benifit from the pipeline.

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Muse
Cave? Hardly. I don't just read the headlines of my paper, bub. I don't get your CW infringement logic, either. Open and shut in YOUR kangaroo court, I guess. See ya in the fine print, laddie. :roll:

Well, it seems like you must have been in a cave, because the President's lack of action on 9/11 right after he was informed of WTC is pretty much common knowledge, reported from Day One. Your Berkeley paper must have failed you.
God forbid America ever actually suffer a REAL full-scale military attack with GW at the reins!

US Copyright law

OK, yes I wasn't in a cave before or after 9/11. I knew where GWB was when he was "informed." I didn't know that he just sat there in shock for several minutes with his face in that children's book. It appears that we both have a very dismal picture of the current president and hope he's out of office come January. It seems to me that if most Americans were aware of how George conducted himself on the morning of 9/11, that wish of ours would certainly come true. I don't think it's common knowledge. Maybe in certain circles. The media I checked out (lots!) didn't make this known. I agree with your last statement completely. AFA copyright law is concerned, I believe that fair usage should (and to a certain degree does) allow using a title that mimics another famous title as long as no pretension is made for a work's content. I think that Bradbury's protestations are ridiculous and that he has made himself out a fool. There are times when famous people are better off remaining silent than putting themselves in the limelight simply because they have an opportunity to do so. They are not conscious of what they are actually doing.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: Muse

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Muse
Cave? Hardly. I don't just read the headlines of my paper, bub. I don't get your CW infringement logic, either. Open and shut in YOUR kangaroo court, I guess. See ya in the fine print, laddie. :roll:

Well, it seems like you must have been in a cave, because the President's lack of action on 9/11 right after he was informed of WTC is pretty much common knowledge, reported from Day One. Your Berkeley paper must have failed you.
God forbid America ever actually suffer a REAL full-scale military attack with GW at the reins!

US Copyright law

OK, yes I wasn't in a cave before or after 9/11. I knew where GWB was when he was "informed." I didn't know that he just sat there in shock for several minutes with his face in that children's book. It appears that we both have a very dismal picture of the current president and hope he's out of office come January. It seems to me that if most Americans were aware of how George conducted himself on the morning of 9/11, that wish of ours would certainly come true. I don't think it's common knowledge. Maybe in certain circles. The media I checked out (lots!) didn't make this known. I agree with your last statement completely. AFA copyright law is concerned, I believe that fair usage should (and to a certain degree does) allow using a title that mimics another famous title as long as no pretension is made for a work's content. I think that Bradbury's protestations are ridiculous and that he has made himself out a fool. There are times when famous people are better off remaining silent than putting themselves in the limelight simply because they have an opportunity to do so. They are not conscious of what they are actually doing.

Why do people make such a big deal out of what the President did right after 9/11? WTF should he have done? If he had abruptly left the room and sat in the hall without a camera on him would it have made a difference? More than likely he was told to stay put until they figured out what was going on and if the area was secure. Do you not understand that keeping the President alive is the most important thing at a time like that?

 

[samgau]

As for my part, I enjoyed the movie.... Of course the content is to be taken with a grain of salt, as is absolutely everything you hear, watch or read these days... but one thing is aparent, even the president of the mighty USA is ready to bend over backwards for those who have money.... the line blurs between politics and business...

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: BaboonGuy

Originally posted by: Karsten
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/?GT1=3584

Quote of the final wrap for thouse who don't have the patience to read the whole thing:

If Michael Moore had had his way, Slobodan Milosevic would still be the big man in a starved and tyrannical Serbia. Bosnia and Kosovo would have been cleansed and annexed. If Michael Moore had been listened to, Afghanistan would still be under Taliban rule, and Kuwait would have remained part of Iraq. And Iraq itself would still be the personal property of a psychopathic crime family, bargaining covertly with the slave state of North Korea for WMD. You might hope that a retrospective awareness of this kind would induce a little modesty. To the contrary, it is employed to pump air into one of the great sagging blimps of our sorry, mediocre, celeb-rotten culture. Rock the vote, indeed.

Hm what an unbiased review! I don't think the guy realizes that there are other methods to solve problems other than war.

But yet, Michael Moore has none to offer!

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: KC5AV
Can you say lawsuit?

I wondered how long it would take for this to happen.

I've read Fahrenheit 451. Great book!

 

[TheWart]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: Muse

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Muse
Cave? Hardly. I don't just read the headlines of my paper, bub. I don't get your CW infringement logic, either. Open and shut in YOUR kangaroo court, I guess. See ya in the fine print, laddie. :roll:

Well, it seems like you must have been in a cave, because the President's lack of action on 9/11 right after he was informed of WTC is pretty much common knowledge, reported from Day One. Your Berkeley paper must have failed you.
God forbid America ever actually suffer a REAL full-scale military attack with GW at the reins!

US Copyright law

OK, yes I wasn't in a cave before or after 9/11. I knew where GWB was when he was "informed." I didn't know that he just sat there in shock for several minutes with his face in that children's book. It appears that we both have a very dismal picture of the current president and hope he's out of office come January. It seems to me that if most Americans were aware of how George conducted himself on the morning of 9/11, that wish of ours would certainly come true. I don't think it's common knowledge. Maybe in certain circles. The media I checked out (lots!) didn't make this known. I agree with your last statement completely. AFA copyright law is concerned, I believe that fair usage should (and to a certain degree does) allow using a title that mimics another famous title as long as no pretension is made for a work's content. I think that Bradbury's protestations are ridiculous and that he has made himself out a fool. There are times when famous people are better off remaining silent than putting themselves in the limelight simply because they have an opportunity to do so. They are not conscious of what they are actually doing.

Why do people make such a big deal out of what the President did right after 9/11? WTF should he have done? If he had abruptly left the room and sat in the hall without a camera on him would it have made a difference? More than likely he was told to stay put until they figured out what was going on and if the area was secure. Do you not understand that keeping the President alive is the most important thing at a time like that?

Exactly.

I think it is safe to say that *anyone* in that situation would not know what to do right away. I doubt he was blocking the event out and looking at the picture book. He was probably thinking of what to do without creating a huge scene in front of the children.

Is it possible Bush made a mistake in not responding differently and perhaps leaving right away? Sure, but I don't see how one can demonize a man for doing that. Now if one is using that tape as 'evidence' that Bush new about 9-11 in advance, then....*rolls eyes*

 

[gururu]

Originally posted by: TheWart

Exactly.

I think it is safe to say that *anyone* in that situation would not know what to do right away. I doubt he was blocking the event out and looking at the picture book. He was probably thinking of what to do without creating a huge scene in front of the children.

Is it possible Bush made a mistake in not responding differently and perhaps leaving right away? Sure, but I don't see how one can demonize a man for doing that. Now if one is using that tape as 'evidence' that Bush new about 9-11 in advance, then....*rolls eyes*

I think that this and the preceding points are good. It's too much to conclude what was going through his mind. I guess the part of it that is disturbing is that he just didn't look together. I think many would have expected him to bow out and be rushed to safety while figuring out what to do. At the least, to discuss the issue with one or more top officials as soon as possible. Maybe 7 minutes was as soon as possible. Maybe SS had him stay in the room. I don't think the video was damning. But then again one might ask, why did he even go on with the publicity stunt after hearing about the first crash where thousands were sure to have died?

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: gururu

Originally posted by: TheWart

Exactly.

I think it is safe to say that *anyone* in that situation would not know what to do right away. I doubt he was blocking the event out and looking at the picture book. He was probably thinking of what to do without creating a huge scene in front of the children.

Is it possible Bush made a mistake in not responding differently and perhaps leaving right away? Sure, but I don't see how one can demonize a man for doing that. Now if one is using that tape as 'evidence' that Bush new about 9-11 in advance, then....*rolls eyes*

I think that this and the preceding points are good. It's too much to conclude what was going through his mind. I guess the part of it that is disturbing is that he just didn't look together. I think many would have expected him to bow out and be rushed to safety while figuring out what to do. At the least, to discuss the issue with one or more top officials as soon as possible. Maybe 7 minutes was as soon as possible. Maybe SS had him stay in the room. I don't think the video was damning. But then again one might ask, why did he even go on with the publicity stunt after hearing about the first crash?

But that's the thing. Where was safety located? No one knew at that time what was safe and they knew they had him in what was probably a location as safe as any other at that given point in time.