Pro Bush on Fahrenheit 9/11

[noreaster]

I was just curious if anyone here in this forum watched Fahrenheit 9/11 and was pro-Bush before they watched the movie? Now the next question did the movie change the way you were going to vote?

I have talked to 5 different people recently that were VERY pro-Bush before they watched Fahrenheit 9/11 within the last 2 weeks.. After watching Fahrenheit 9/11 they are now going to vote for Kerry. Amazing!! Now I am curious and have to watch the movie to see what its all about.

 

[First Tracks]

You know 5 people who are easily manipulated by blatant propaganda.

 

[noreaster]

You know 5 people who are easily manipulated by blatant propaganda.

That is the amazing part you would not think that these people are easily manipulated like that. I was shocked when they told me this. They all pointed out that they know the movie contains a lot of BS but there were some key points that stuck with them. I am shocked one movie could do that.

 

[MtnMagic]

A movie is simply only a movie.

But facts are facts.

It all comes out in the wash!

 

[First Tracks]

A movie is simply only a movie.

But facts are facts.

It all comes out in the wash!

Yeah, but some movies masquerade as documentaries to communicate "facts."

 

[ChileMass]

A movie is simply only a movie.

But facts are facts.

It all comes out in the wash!

Yeah, but some movies masquerade as documentaries to communicate "facts."

Well said.......

 

[MtnMagic]

And yet it does come out it the wash.

It's the way it goes!

And it went well for our group (6) of us during this last two days. In the middle of the Pemi. Rain, sleet, and snow. One fantastic adventure.

It doesn't get much better than this~!!

 

[explorer13421]

Try www.eppc.org for an article debunking Fahrenheit 911. It is in the upper right hand corner of the webpage.

 

[tree_skier]

Try www.eppc.org for an article debunking Fahrenheit 911. It is in the upper right hand corner of the webpage.

The following passage (from the above article) pretty much sums up the movie. It also can sum up alot of the democratic party.

Moore is careful—often through a lawyerly precision in word choice—to avoid the simplest lies and to steer barely clear of claims that are plainly libelous. Instead, he chops up the truth and rearranges the pieces to form a thoroughly false picture of reality that is composed of genuine video and audio clips that in reality often have little or nothing to do with the point being advanced in the film, and of facts out of context and figures misrepresented. This means that while Moore’s “facts” are not all false, essentially none of his “arguments” turns out to be true.

 

[noreaster]

What is propaganda?

Webster’s definition.

1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.
2. Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda.
3. Propaganda Roman Catholic Church. A division of the Roman Curia that has authority in the matter of preaching the gospel, of establishing the Church in non-Christian countries, and of administering Church missions in territories where there is no properly organized hierarchy

Questions:
-Is Rush Limbaugh talks propaganda?
-Is the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth propaganda?
-Is moveon.org propaganda?
-Is most of AM Talk Radio propaganda?
-Is Fox News when they declared George W Bush president in 2000 propaganda?
-Is the conservative owners of the Gallup Poll results propaganda?
-Is National Public Radio propaganda?

I think the beauty of a Democracy and free speech is we all have the freedom and opportunity to choose what we want to listen to or read?
We have a great country of checks an balances. Having one political party in power of all branches of government dilutes those checks and balances.
:wink:

 

[MtnMagic]

Glad you posted!

I hear you!

Well said!

 

[tree_skier]

What is propaganda?



Questions:
-Is Rush Limbaugh talks propaganda?
-Is the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth propaganda?
-Is moveon.org propaganda?
-Is most of AM Talk Radio propaganda?
-Is Fox News when they declared George W Bush president in 2000 propaganda?
-Is the conservative owners of the Gallup Poll results propaganda?
-Is National Public Radio propaganda?
:

Some more questions
- Is everything said by CBS news propaganda?
- Is ABC news's reporting of an undecided (who has voted the staight line democratic ticket the past 8 pesidential elections including for Gore in 2000) as being an undecided swayed towards Kerry by the last debate propaganda?
- Is anything being said by the major networks (abc,cbs,nbc) about politics not propaganda?

 

[First Tracks]

Having one political party in power of all branches of government dilutes those checks and balances.
:wink:

So, therefore, your proposed solution to ensure what you're referring to as "checks and balances" is to place a person with a 30-year track record of ineffective leadership, truth distortion, and admitting to committing wartime atrocities into the Executive Office only because he has a "-D" tacked onto the end of his name rather than "-R"?

Yeah, that makes sense to me. :roll:

And BTW, our system of "checks and balances" is designed around a tri-cameral government structure (Executive, Judicial, and Legislative branches), not a two-party system.

 

[riverc0il]

Moore is careful—often through a lawyerly precision in word choice—to avoid the simplest lies and to steer barely clear of claims that are plainly libelous. Instead, he chops up the truth and rearranges the pieces to form a thoroughly false picture of reality that is composed of genuine video and audio clips that in reality often have little or nothing to do with the point being advanced in the film, and of facts out of context and figures misrepresented. This means that while Moore’s “facts” are not all false, essentially none of his “arguments” turns out to be true.

this is true of proponents of both political sides... manipulating facts to meet their agenda. clearly, lawyers and other fact finders and fact checkers ensured that no facts displayed or noted in the movie were lies. but such is the nature of the medium of visual presentation that you can manipulate facts to suite your message. this is also true of statistics. this happens on both sides of political issues unfortunately, instead of just showing the facts and letting people judge for themselves. however, our current american culture doesn't like people to think for themselves and rather prefers people to be spoon fed opinions. this happens every where unfortunately.

quite frankly, the people right now that are most at fault of skewering the numbers are both presidential and vice presidential candidates. all four of them are fudging numbers left and right as seen on the debates and else where. a careful fact check reveals that none of them are getting the numbers or facts completely 100% right, or not manipulating them to suite their purposes, most of the time.

despite my bias towards the point of view of moore, i think he does often do himself a disservice in his presentation. i have yet to see F911, so i can not comment on that particular movie. but i hear it's free of usual moore antics generally known in moore films such as roger & me. as i always like to point out, i REALLY hope no one is slandering or speaking out against this movie without having seen it. that's an ignorent opinion in my view. see it first, then speak out against it having viewed and digested the film instead of regurgatating the opinions of others, or worse, forming an opinion without any information other than a pre-judtged conclusion. in these times, it's important for us all to form out own opinions by going straight to the facts and not relying on second hand sources that do sometimes tilt the facts into a political spin.

 

[riverc0il]

Having one political party in power of all branches of government dilutes those checks and balances.
:wink:

So, therefore, your proposed solution to ensure what you're referring to as "checks and balances" is to place a person with a 30-year track record of ineffective leadership, truth distortion, and admitting to committing wartime atrocities into the Executive Office only because he has a "-D" tacked onto the end of his name rather than "-R"?

Yeah, that makes sense to me. :roll:

And BTW, our system of "checks and balances" is designed around a tri-cameral government structure (Executive, Judicial, and Legislative branches), not a two-party system.

there was a wink after noreaster's statement about the one political party? that comment (hopefully) seemed to be tongue in cheek in support of noreaster's political disposition towards candidates.

let's open this up a bit here: the checks and balances system was original installed in a time during which states really disagreed with one another and voted for local political issues. often times, people within the same party highly disageed with one another about political issues. for example the civil war split party lines geographically due to economic and moral factors. local economics was more often an issue whereas the parties were more concerned with how much power state vs. government had and other such issues. i am unsure if the founders of this country foresaw the advent of a two party system. iirc, thomas jefferson specifically wrote against a two party system taking effect (will try to find the text on that in a second). the political parties currently consolidate political discourse into largely only two points of view, whereas there are more than two ideas for how to best run a country. regional and local politics are largely out the window and political grounds are being drawn up on largely moral grounds now on a national level. in a system in which an entire political party agrees and works together, there may be a problem with having all three branches of government of the same party (this goes true repub or demo or third party, etc. - i'm not being biased here).

while there is no question checks and balances does not apply to party, it checks and balances judicial, executive, and legislative duties... perhaps it is something to think about that a unified party in all three branches might be a problem in the spirit of what the constitution originally meant to design in the governmental system. something to think about.

i think a lot of the two-party system is largely the result of third party candidates being looked at as throw away votes and their input and opinions and legitimate politics not being taken seriously. this also causes potential alternate views to be squelched and candidates forced to join parties they don't 100% agree with the platform on in order to have a snow balls chance in hell of being elected. this is what it always comes back to for me: Instant Runoff Voting which will reduce negative campaigning, cause candidates to reach out to opposing view points not just a few "undecided" voters in battle ground states, and allow third party input into a homogenized political structure in which there really isn't much difference between the two major parties except a few moral issues. we chooce between bad and worse.

so while the two party system surely is not a violation of checks and balances, it sure should raise some interesting questions about how our government is run and whether changes in the political and governmental landscape have caused our current system to become outdated. that's the best thing about the constitution, is it was simply created as a framework that was meant to be altered as new conditions demanded.

 

[riverc0il]

iirc, thomas jefferson specifically wrote against a two party system taking effect (will try to find the text on that in a second).

okay, slightly off on this one but rather close. jefferson was strongly against the electoral college which he wrote against. but was actually essentially one of the founders of the party system. however, he opposed the system despite his being elected while on a party, just realized it was the way things were going at the time:

Neither Jefferson nor his supporters ever acknowledged that they were founding a political party, whatever the name. The evolution of political parties was proceeding in an environment that continued to regard the word party much like the word “democrat,” as an epithet. “I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever,” Jefferson insisted. “Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all.” It required Herculean powers of denial for Jefferson to launch America’s first political party while claiming to loathe the partisan mentality it required, but he was psychologically up tot the task.

Source

 

[First Tracks]

yadda, yadda, yadda

I'm way, way too sauced to respond to this right now.

:beer:

 

[rekcahza]

Michael Moore did nothing more than present the truth about the great evil that is George W. Bush. He is by far the worst president our great nation has ever had. He has made us hated thruout the world, caused untold misery for hundreds of thousands, while him and the rich folks he represents send their children to private schools, go sailing and golfing all summer. An utter embarassment, I cannont wait till he loses in November. GOD BLESS PRESIDENT KERRY! You will need it to straighten out the mess this imbecile left you.

 

[First Tracks]

while him and the rich folks he represents send their children to private schools

Oh, to be a product of public schools such as you must be! I'd then be able to utter lovely examples of proper English grammar, such as, "While him and the rich folks he represents..."

I'm not sure which is more pathetic, your political ignorance or your grasp of the English language.

 

[rekcahza]

while him and the rich folks he represents send their children to private schools

Oh, to be a product of public schools such as you must be! I'd then be able to utter lovely examples of proper English grammar, such as, "While him and the rich folks he represents..."

I'm not sure which is more pathetic, your political ignorance or your grasp of the English language.

"Him" or "He" - who gives a phuck, mate--
I apparently grasp things politically that YOU have no concept of. And you are a product of private schools, and support Shrub? No surprise there. Ol' GW attended Andover AND Yale yet cannot pronouce "Nuclear"(It's not Nu-cu-lar you idiot, it's NU-CLEE-ERR). No worries, he will be ousted in 2 weeks. :beer: