Saw Fahrenheit 9/11; Changed My Mind (now, with cliff notes!!!)

[Ilmater]

Cliff Notes:
I hate Michael Moore.
Bush cut military benefits while at the same time sending troops to war. <-- sick fvck
I'm voting for Kerry (or maybe Nader).

I hate Michael Moore. I want to make that clear. He distorts facts and/or outright lies in his movies (otherwise known as propaganda).

So, as I'm watching his movie (I think you kind of have to if you're political at all, or else you can't intelligently disagree) I'm really jsut spending most of the time explaining to myself why the things he's saying aren't true. Most of them are ridiculous. For instance, he makes a REALLY big deal about how the "big, bad Bush administration" blacked out a name that was in Bush's military records when he released them. He fails to mention that EVERY name is blacked out across ALL pages of the document, and in fact, the "big, bad Bush administration" had nothing to do with it. It's standard military practice.

However, I digress. As I was saying, I was watching the movie and discounting things, when I noticed something that I knew to be true. Bush decided it would be a good idea to cut pay to veterans and active soldiers. I know this one point to be true.

I used to give Bush a pass on this because I didn't (and still don't) like Kerry, but that's ridiculous. This is a reprehensible act by a President sending troops to war. I just can't let it pas any longer. What do those of you that support Bush have to say to counter that?

And if any of you doubt that I'm conservative, please feel free to check my past postings.

 

[conjur]

Careful...now you're going to be labeled: brainwashed, deceived, traitorous, etc.


I went the same route but it didn't take Moore's movie. It took Bush's own words. His constant defending of his stance on the invasion of Iraq got me wondering why he was being constantly assailed and questioned. I began doing more research and reading back thru posts up here and it became clear the web of deception that was weaved by this administration that continues to this day.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: conjur
Careful...now you're going to be labeled: brainwashed, deceived, traitorous, etc.


I went the same route but it didn't take Moore's movie. It took Bush's own words. His constant defending of his stance on the invasion of Iraq got me wondering why he was being constantly assailed and questioned. I began doing more research and reading back thru posts up here and it became clear the web of deception that was weaved by this administration that continues to this day.

pretty weak though when all it takes is a heavily biased movie to change ones mind wouldn't you say? a refernce to sheep comes to mind...

personally I would not vote at all before even considering voting for Kerry.

 

[conjur]

Like I said....

 

[Genx87]

hate Michael Moore. I want to make that clear. He distorts facts and/or outright lies in his movies (otherwise known as propaganda).

This should have been your first clue.

Support for Soldiers and Veterans

Deceits 50-52



Bush ?supported closing veterans hospitals? says Moore. The Bush Department of Veteran?s Affairs did propose closing seven hospitals in areas with declining populations where the hospitals were underutilized, and whose veterans could be served by other hospitals. Moore does not say that the Department also proposed building new hospitals in areas where needs were growing, and also building blind rehabilitation centers and spinal cord injury centers. (For more, see the Final Report of the independent commission on veterans hospitals, which agrees with some of the Bush proposals, and with some of the objections raised by critics.)



According to Moore, Bush ?tried to double the prescription drug costs for veterans.? What Bush proposed was raising the prescription co-pay from $7 to $15, for veterans with incomes of over $24,000 a year. Prescription costs would have remained very heavily subsidized by taxpayers. Some, not all, veterans would have faced a doubling of their prescription co-pay, but only to a level which is common for many people with prescription insurance, and hardly a large enough increase to make a great difference in most cases.



Bush, announces Moore, ?proposed cutting combat soldiers? pay by 33%.? Not exactly. In addition to regular military salaries, soldiers in certain areas (not just combat zones) receive an ?imminent danger? bonus of $150 a month. In April 2003, Congress retroactively enacted a special increase of $75, for the fiscal year of Oct. 1, 2002 through Sept. 30, 2003. At first, the Bush administration did not support renewing the special bonus, but then changed its position



Likewise, Congress had passed a special one-year increase in the family separation allowance (for service personnel stationed in places where their families cannot join them) from $100 to $250. Bush?s initial opposition to extending the special increase was presented by Moore as ?cutting assistance to their families by 60%.? (Edward Epstein, ?Pentagon reverses course, won?t cut troops? pay,? San Francisco Chronicle, Aug. 15, 2003.)



Even if one characterizes not renewing a special bonus as a ?cut,? Fahrenheit misleads the viewer into thinking that the cuts applied to total compensation, rather than only to pay supplements which constitute only a small percentage of a soldier?s income. An enlisted man with four months of experience receives an annual salary more than $27,000. (Rod Powers, ?What the Recruiter Never Told You: Military Pay.?)



Although Moore presents Bush as cutting military pay, Bush did the opposite: in 2003, Congress enacted a Bush administration proposal to raise all military salaries by 3.7%, with extra ?targeted? pay increases for non-commissioned officers. NCOs are lower-ranking officers who typically join the military with lower levels of education than commissioned officers. (Sgt. 1st Class Doug Sample, ?Defense Department Targets Military Pay Increases for 2004,? American Forces Press Service.)



(Deceits: 1. Closing veterans hospitals without mentioning of opening of veteran's hospitals, 2. Cutting combat soldiers pay as if it were a cut in total salary, 3. Omission of Bush pay increase for military. Prescription drugs not counted as deceit, although important context is missing.)



Here is a different take on it with a little more documentation than Moore can produce.

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

 

[halik]

The movie would make sense if you edit out his commentary,
drop the thing about Gore/election ("his dads buddies at supreme court" bah worthless argument), drop the crappy arguments against the partiot act (weak).

The connection between Bushes and Halliburton is what amazed me to be honest. His personal remarks were crap really, if he stayed neutral the movie would've been a lot better

 

[Shuxclams]

Originally posted by: Ilmater
Cliff Notes:
I hate Michael Moore.
Bush cut military benefits while at the same time sending troops to war. <-- sick fvck
I'm voting for Kerry (or maybe Nader).

I hate Michael Moore. I want to make that clear. He distorts facts and/or outright lies in his movies (otherwise known as propaganda).

So, as I'm watching his movie (I think you kind of have to if you're political at all, or else you can't intelligently disagree) I'm really jsut spending most of the time explaining to myself why the things he's saying aren't true. Most of them are ridiculous. For instance, he makes a REALLY big deal about how the "big, bad Bush administration" blacked out a name that was in Bush's military records when he released them. He fails to mention that EVERY name is blacked out across ALL pages of the document, and in fact, the "big, bad Bush administration" had nothing to do with it. It's standard military practice.

However, I digress. As I was saying, I was watching the movie and discounting things, when I noticed something that I knew to be true. Bush decided it would be a good idea to cut pay to veterans and active soldiers. I know this one point to be true.

I used to give Bush a pass on this because I didn't (and still don't) like Kerry, but that's ridiculous. This is a reprehensible act by a President sending troops to war. I just can't let it pas any longer. What do those of you that support Bush have to say to counter that?

And if any of you doubt that I'm conservative, please feel free to check my past postings.

What your saying is true about the representation of facts (the blacking out of names for instance). The Bin-Ladin's family story is true... but only mostly. That was left open ended and it should have been pointed out that there werent any special flights made until the flight ban had been lifted. However, the remainder of the Bin-Ladin story is true. That seems to be a consistant methodology throughout the film, kinda allowing for a "relative truth" but not the whole truth. If anything it reminds me of Fox News and their coverage of "Facts". For the most part Fox presents resonable facts but doesnt ever complete the story and fills the balance with opinions thus creating soemthing like "Fahrenheit" all day everyday...... Its annoying isnt it?







SHUX

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: halik
The movie would make sense if you edit out his commentary,
drop the thing about Gore/election ("his dads buddies at supreme court" bah worthless argument), drop the crappy arguments against the partiot act (weak).

The connection between Bushes and Halliburton is what amazed me to be honest. His personal remarks were crap really, if he stayed neutral the movie would've been a lot better

I would definitely have to agree there. Some of his comments were just over-the-top and accusatory. But the portions of the film during those comments were very telling.

 

[Shuxclams]

The connection between Bushes and Halliburton is what amazed me to be honest.

Its kinda sad that it was a surprise to you or anyone else.... its been in the media since day one.













SHUX

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Shuxclams

The connection between Bushes and Halliburton is what amazed me to be honest.

Its kinda sad that it was a surprise to you or anyone else.... its been in the media since day one.

But no one really paid attention until it was thrust in our faces on the big screen and all the dots connected (Taliban, Unocal, Hamid Karzai, gas pipeline, Halliburton, Cheney, Bush, Sauds, bin Ladens)

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

his commentary was definitely unneeded. But the most incriminating evidence was from the bush administration themselves, moore didn't have to do much.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: Shuxclams

The connection between Bushes and Halliburton is what amazed me to be honest.

Its kinda sad that it was a surprise to you or anyone else.... its been in the media since day one.













SHUX

i heard about the pipeline and i certainly heard about Haliburton, but the movie tied the events and people together. Especially the people in the new Iraqi goverment having ties back to that one law company that pulled Bush W from his legal trouble

Oh yeah the whole thing of him driving around in an ice cream truck was moronic. But that goes back to having weak arguments against the partioct act (i could've done better - take that Muslim Lawyer that was jailed by a mistake )

 

[NightCrawler]

The whole movie sucked....Moore is just waaaaay to bias to believe anything he says.

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: Shuxclams
What your saying is true about the representation of facts (the blacking out of names for instance). The Bin-Ladin's family story is true... but only mostly. That was left open ended and it should have been pointed out that there werent any special flights made until the flight ban had been lifted. However, the remainder of the Bin-Ladin story is true. That seems to be a consistant methodology throughout the film, kinda allowing for a "relative truth" but not the whole truth. If anything it reminds me of Fox News and their coverage of "Facts". For the most part Fox presents resonable facts but doesnt ever complete the story and fills the balance with opinions thus creating soemthing like "Fahrenheit" all day everyday...... Its annoying isnt it?

No, the Bin Laden family story is NOT true. There are many who say that they WERE questioned before they were allowed to leave. Plus, THEY DON'T TALK TO OSAMA! Yeah, they may know something, but there are NUMEROUS sources that would tell you that they rarely - if ever - communicate with their son. The way MM presents it, just because he showed up at a wedding that his family had, that means that they talked to him a lot. No, it doesn't.

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: Shuxclams

The connection between Bushes and Halliburton is what amazed me to be honest.

Its kinda sad that it was a surprise to you or anyone else.... its been in the media since day one.

SHUX

i heard about the pipeline and i certainly heard about Haliburton, but the movie tied the events and people together. Especially the people in the new Iraqi goverment having ties back to that one law company that pulled Bush W from his legal trouble

Oh yeah the whole thing of him driving around in an ice cream truck was moronic. But that goes back to having weak arguments against the partioct act (i could've done better - take that Muslim Lawyer that was jailed by a mistake )

Well, his two arguments against the Patriot Act were:

1) This group was infiltrated by a detective, and
2) This guy was turned in by friends as possibly being a terrorist.

NEITHER of those things had ANYTHING to do with the Patriot Act. Both were the result of PEOPLE being paranoid and scared after 9/11. That old guy's friends from the gym were probably old, and definitely paranoid. The cops that investigated him were only following up on a lead from people they thought were credible. As for the peace group, I think it's rediculous that law enforcement is wasting its energy and resources with that kind of thing, but that, again, has nothing to do with the Patriot Act.

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: IlmaterHowever, I digress. As I was saying, I was watching the movie and discounting things, when I noticed something that I knew to be true. Bush decided it would be a good idea to cut pay to veterans and active soldiers. I know this one point to be true.

I used to give Bush a pass on this because I didn't (and still don't) like Kerry, but that's ridiculous. This is a reprehensible act by a President sending troops to war. I just can't let it pas any longer. What do those of you that support Bush have to say to counter that?

And if any of you doubt that I'm conservative, please feel free to check my past postings.

I noticed that no one has responded to the guy's main point...

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: IlmaterHowever, I digress. As I was saying, I was watching the movie and discounting things, when I noticed something that I knew to be true. Bush decided it would be a good idea to cut pay to veterans and active soldiers. I know this one point to be true.

I used to give Bush a pass on this because I didn't (and still don't) like Kerry, but that's ridiculous. This is a reprehensible act by a President sending troops to war. I just can't let it pas any longer. What do those of you that support Bush have to say to counter that?

And if any of you doubt that I'm conservative, please feel free to check my past postings.

I noticed that no one has responded to the guy's main point...

Genx87 did.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: Ilmater

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: Shuxclams

The connection between Bushes and Halliburton is what amazed me to be honest.

Its kinda sad that it was a surprise to you or anyone else.... its been in the media since day one.

SHUX

i heard about the pipeline and i certainly heard about Haliburton, but the movie tied the events and people together. Especially the people in the new Iraqi goverment having ties back to that one law company that pulled Bush W from his legal trouble

Oh yeah the whole thing of him driving around in an ice cream truck was moronic. But that goes back to having weak arguments against the partioct act (i could've done better - take that Muslim Lawyer that was jailed by a mistake )

Well, his two arguments against the Patriot Act were:

1) This group was infiltrated by a detective, and
2) This guy was turned in by friends as possibly being a terrorist.

NEITHER of those things had ANYTHING to do with the Patriot Act. Both were the result of PEOPLE being paranoid and scared after 9/11. That old guy's friends from the gym were probably old, and definitely paranoid. The cops that investigated him were only following up on a lead from people they thought were credible. As for the peace group, I think it's rediculous that law enforcement is wasting its energy and resources with that kind of thing, but that, again, has nothing to do with the Patriot Act.

exactly, any argument against the Patriot act should be based on the possibility of circumventing the Bill or Rights. That's what the controversy is all about, not about wasting resources on Hippie groups. Neither of the events presented were unlawful on controversial ... they were absurd at most.

 

[irwincur]

What your saying is true about the representation of facts (the blacking out of names for instance). The Bin-Ladin's family story is true... but only mostly. That was left open ended and it should have been pointed out that there werent any special flights made until the flight ban had been lifted. However, the remainder of the Bin-Ladin story is true. That seems to be a consistant methodology throughout the film, kinda allowing for a "relative truth" but not the whole truth. If anything it reminds me of Fox News and their coverage of "Facts". For the most part Fox presents resonable facts but doesnt ever complete the story and fills the balance with opinions thus creating soemthing like "Fahrenheit" all day everyday...... Its annoying isnt it?

That is known as the Noam Chomsky method of finding the truth. If you have a lot of little truths, and you collect them all, you can make a bigger truth. Just don't let anyone know about what you left out, because it could bring down the entire house of cards.



About the writer of this thread. You probably should not be voting if you do not understand that the president neither writes or votes on laws. He does have veto power, but it would be ignorant to think that laws and bills only contain one topic. Many times there are literally thousands of topics and sub topics, in the end you need to pass or veto based on the relative merit of the ENITIRE law. In terms of budgeting, he has nearly no control (and I suspect this would be a budget issue), he can only suggest a budget, then the hacks in the Senate can butcher it.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Shuxclams

The connection between Bushes and Halliburton is what amazed me to be honest.

Its kinda sad that it was a surprise to you or anyone else.... its been in the media since day one.

But no one really paid attention until it was thrust in our faces on the big screen and all the dots connected (Taliban, Unocal, Hamid Karzai, gas pipeline, Halliburton, Cheney, Bush, Sauds, bin Ladens)

Yes, and while these connections are not slam dunk proof of any particular conspiracy, they are facts relevant to the situation that are amazingly unknown by the American public, which is just SO hard to understand given the well known liberal bias of our press! (Excuse me while I laugh bitterly).

Can you imagine if it were Clinton and his family with such connections? What would every other post from Riprorin have been like the past couple of years? Would a gleeful heartsurgeon have ever left? What would the Rush talking points drones have hammered on and come back to relentlessly in every single thread, no matter the original subject?

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: irwincur
About the writer of this thread. You probably should not be voting if you do not understand that the president neither writes or votes on laws. He does have veto power, but it would be ignorant to think that laws and bills only contain one topic. Many times there are literally thousands of topics and sub topics, in the end you need to pass or veto based on the relative merit of the ENITIRE law. In terms of budgeting, he has nearly no control (and I suspect this would be a budget issue), he can only suggest a budget, then the hacks in the Senate can butcher it.

So, I am ignorant because:

A) According to you, the President doesn't write or vote on laws.
B) Many bills contain small addendums that are either unrelated to, or completely separate from the rest of the bill.

My retort to those assertions:

A) You're ignorant if you think the President's administration doesn't have a lot to do with what bills get passed/proposed in Congress. He has a TON of say in what goes on in his party. He can move things like party endorsements, campaign donations, verbal support, etc. that influence what gets passed. I know he doesn't MAKE the bills, but he has a lot to do with what his party endorses. Plus, more importantly (and logically), his policy follows party policy very closely. So, if there is widespread Republican support for something in Congress, it's probably something the President would agree with as well. It works both ways.

B) So, if I understand you correctly, I can't hold anyone responsible for anything he or she votes on because they were "probably" voting for someone else. Hmmm, that just doesn't sound like a good way to conduct my role as a voter, does it? "Should I vote for him? Well, he did vote to shoot everyone older than 60. Oh well, that was probably just an addendum to a 'Save the Life of Children' bill. Yeah, I'll vote for him."

I also want to be clear about something else (I'll edit my post above in this respect as well). I specifically mention this because I had heard this particular argument about a dozen other times (mostly on these here forums), and I never heard it rebutted by the conservative crowd. I really just wanted to see what the response would be.

 

[Zephyr106]

"The President" actually can make bills. Any American can write bills. The Patriot Act was written by that Vietnamese Justice Department official. To get the bill up for a vote, a congressman has to present the bill for a vote (and/or committee consideration?).

Zephyr

 

[Corn]

I am a conservative (mostly) who saw this film and will still vote for Bush. I wonder if I should start my own thread making this proclaimation.

 

[daveshel]

Originally posted by: Ilmater
Cliff Notes:
I hate Michael Moore.
Bush cut military benefits while at the same time sending troops to war. <-- sick fvck
I'm voting for Kerry (or maybe Nader).

I hate Michael Moore. I want to make that clear. He distorts facts and/or outright lies in his movies (otherwise known as propaganda).

So, as I'm watching his movie (I think you kind of have to if you're political at all, or else you can't intelligently disagree) I'm really jsut spending most of the time explaining to myself why the things he's saying aren't true. Most of them are ridiculous. For instance, he makes a REALLY big deal about how the "big, bad Bush administration" blacked out a name that was in Bush's military records when he released them. He fails to mention that EVERY name is blacked out across ALL pages of the document, and in fact, the "big, bad Bush administration" had nothing to do with it. It's standard military practice.

However, I digress. As I was saying, I was watching the movie and discounting things, when I noticed something that I knew to be true. Bush decided it would be a good idea to cut pay to veterans and active soldiers. I know this one point to be true.

I used to give Bush a pass on this because I didn't (and still don't) like Kerry, but that's ridiculous. This is a reprehensible act by a President sending troops to war. I just can't let it pas any longer. What do those of you that support Bush have to say to counter that?

And if any of you doubt that I'm conservative, please feel free to check my past postings.

I commend you for being open-minded enough to view the film. Yes, it has its weak points but I think it is important that everybody go to the extent that you did rather than just bashing without any first-hand knowledge.

 

[thuper]

If Bush cutting pay to soldiers isn't enough....

When the Republicans go to New York later this year to wear their patriotism on their sleeve for the convention, at the same time there will be a bill on the floor of congress supported by the white house to strip 88,000 uniformed police officers of their federal funding. 5,000 of those police are NYPD who put their lives on the line on September 11.