Fahrenheit 9/11 discussion (spoilers)

[Darth Wong]

This movie won't change a single Republican mind, because none of them will see it, and the handful that are dragged to it for some reason or other will only be looking for nits to pick.

Therefore, the real question is whether there are a large number of undecided voters out there, and whether they would see and be influenced by this film. It's not as if they don't get their daily dose of right-wing propaganda from FOX, Limbaugh, and all of the others whose mission in life is to sit at Bush's knees with mouths open and waiting to receive his cock.

[Pablo Sanchez]

Good to see the left isn't letting the facts get in the way.

Your statement is unintentially ironic, considering that our subject touches on the Iraq war. This Moore documentary is part of a reaction by the angry left to their perception (which I believe is correct) that the right-wing has been engaged in an offensive of lies. Is it ethically correct that people like Moore should produce incendiary political 'documentaries' that support one side to the exclusion of the other? Perhaps not. Is it inevitable? Most definitely.

[Pablo Sanchez]

Therefore, the real question is whether there are a large number of undecided voters out there,

A lot of traditional conservatives and swing voters are put off by Bush's dishonesty and bad decision-making skills. One can't really say exactly how many... it may be a significant faction.

and whether they would see and be influenced by this film. It's not as if they don't get their daily dose of right-wing propaganda from FOX, Limbaugh, and all of the others whose mission in life is to sit at Bush's knees with mouths open and waiting to receive his cock.

Parrots perched right on the party line. I think a large part of Limbaugh's service is to come up with the total dumbshit excuses and explanations to satisfy the poorly-informed knee-jerk public. Bush can't personally say that "Abu Ghraib was just a buncha frat pranks!" without getting torn apart in the popular press. But Limbaugh can say it without raising an eyebrow, and a surprising number of people will actually accept that kind of stupid tripe.

[The Kernel]

Saw it last night. I found it flawed in some ways, but very powerful with every ounce of Moore's filmmaking style thrown in. I also noticed that Moore seems to have cleaned up some of the factual errors from the Cannes cut of the film (the "no Congressmen with children serving in Iraq" for one) which was a nice touch.

F-9/11 is at its most powerful not as an expose of the Bush administration (of which there are plenty of books that do the job more effectively) but in condensing the overall spirit of the Bush administrations decision to go to war and how that benefits the wealthy elite. Much like Bowling for Columbine, Moore is indicting and entire mentality here and Bush is simply the mouth piece for it and makes a convenient target. It isn't that Bush is connected to the oil business per say, but that Bush is connected to a network of money which is crippling our governments ability to represent the middle and lower classes of America. THAT is the true power of F-9/11 and no matter how many nitpicks the GOP can come up with, this message cannot possibly be tarnished since like BfC, it is an attack on an overall mentality which is as clear as day to anyone who is looking for it.

The most powerful moment of all for me was in Moore's closing words. As usual, once unloading with both barrels he didn't start pointing fingers but tried to let what we've seen stand on its own. Once of his closing thoughts though really brought the situation in perspective because he tied it back to his own town of Flynt, MI. He said that whenever the elite chose to go to war, it was always on the backs of the least fortunate, like those in Flynt who are driven into the military looking for a better life. Moore may have been someone who has "made it", but he hasn't lost touch with his roots and that is perhaps his greatest asset as a filmmaker.

[Axis Kast]

The most powerful moment of all for me was in Moore's closing words. As usual, once unloading with both barrels he didn't start pointing fingers but tried to let what we've seen stand on its own. Once of his closing thoughts though really brought the situation in perspective because he tied it back to his own town of Flynt, MI. He said that whenever the elite chose to go to war, it was always on the backs of the least fortunate, like those in Flynt who are driven into the military looking for a better life. Moore may have been someone who has "made it", but he hasn't lost touch with his roots and that is perhaps his greatest asset as a filmmaker.

"... like those in Flynt who are driven into the military looking for a better life ..." There's a huge irony in that statement. While it's true that it's a sad indictment of our society that it is the Armed Forces that have appeal as one of the best avenues "out" for people stricken by poverty and faced with socio-economic barriers, carrying on about how using the military is somehow a disservice to those who have joined just begs a, "What the fuck?!"

Also - aren't minorities under-represented in the U.S. Armed Forces? I remember reading that somewhere ...

[Aeolus]

It's tough to say. I can't see how anyone could possibly support Bush in any case, so don't ask me...

Bush is not trailing far behind Kerry. In some polls he's slightly behind and in some he's slightly ahead. It IS going to be a VERY close election

[The Kernel]

"... like those in Flynt who are driven into the military looking for a better life ..." There's a huge irony in that statement. While it's true that it's a sad indictment of our society that it is the Armed Forces that have appeal as one of the best avenues "out" for people stricken by poverty and faced with socio-economic barriers, carrying on about how using the military is somehow a disservice to those who have joined just begs a, "What the fuck?!"

There is nothing wrong with using the military justly. The problem is in using the military to fight a war with no purpose other than to line the pockets of the elite. When used in this fashion, the elite are becoming even richer off of the literal life and death of the lower class.

Also - aren't minorities under-represented in the U.S. Armed Forces? I remember reading that somewhere ...

I have no idea but so? I'm talking about socio-economic barriers not race (unless you think that Flynt, MI is mostly black people...).

[kojikun]

On the way back from dinner tonight I passed a movie theatre. There were huge lines of people waiting to see Fahrenheit 9/11. I think Fort Lauderdale is going to be voting Democrat this year. lol

[Seggybop]

Yesterday was the only time in my life when I had to stand in line to get into a movie. A line that eventually stretched to about a half km long. I heard later that they turned away hundreds of people due to lack of space.

[Xenophobe3691]

On the way back from dinner tonight I passed a movie theatre. There were huge lines of people waiting to see Fahrenheit 9/11. I think Fort Lauderdale is going to be voting Democrat this year. lol

You think Ft. Lauderdale was bad? Try Boca Raton! You've got the Rich, and you've got the Jews, and you've got the Old People. Two thirds of the damn town has gone to see that movie in the past few days and it's gonna get worse. We have to preorder the tickets online because we can't get them...

[Zaia]

Funny, but among those he actually got one Congressman that had a relative (nephew?) going over there and naturally he declined to show that much.

He didn't show anything about it, no, but he did mention it at least two, if not three times that there was "only one Congressman with a child in the armed forces."

[Darth Wong]

Funny, but among those he actually got one Congressman that had a relative (nephew?) going over there and naturally he declined to show that much.

He didn't show anything about it, no, but he did mention it at least two, if not three times that there was "only one Congressman with a child in the armed forces."

And isn't that the same congressman who was angrily raking Rumsfeld over the coals for Abu-Ghraib?

Anyway, one can easily argue (as Stormie has) that Moore's ambush technique of asking congressmen to send their kids to Iraq is unfair and propagandistic, but it doesn't change the fact that the group which pays the price for this war is almost entirely unrelated to the group which made it happen.

[Cthulhu-chan]

Also - aren't minorities under-represented in the U.S. Armed Forces? I remember reading that somewhere ...

As a former member of the military, it has been my experience that minorities are well represented as non-commissioned officers. However, commissioned officers seem to predominately be white. Again, this is anecdotal evidence only, and no more than that.

[The Kernel]

I'd just like to say that I took my friend to see this move last night (my 2nd time) and he loved it, despite being a staunch libertarian and general left wing hater. He thought it was a funny, scathing and honest portrayl of the Bush administration's reasons for going to war, despite the fact that he told me just this morning that he though Michael Moore was a fucking joke and that he would never support him by seeing one of his movies. I thought I should make this point so that all you doubters out there will realize that Moore has crafted a genuinely amazing film here and you would be doing yourselves a diservice not to check it out.

Also, I might add that during both showings not only was the theatre totally sold out (on a Sunday night no less!) but during both screenings the film got a fucking standing ovation at the end. How many movies in memory have gotten standing ovations?

[Zaia]

He didn't show anything about it, no, but he did mention it at least two, if not three times that there was "only one Congressman with a child in the armed forces."

And isn't that the same congressman who was angrily raking Rumsfeld over the coals for Abu-Ghraib?

I don't believe he ever names the congressman in the film, so I'm not certain.

After discussing this movie with many of my friends, a number of people who come to my coffeeshop, and reading many articles and reviews on it, finally seeing it in the theatre was quite fascinating.

I had a constant commentary of what everyone's said about it going through my head the entire time, and from my perspective, I can see why the rabid Bush supporters hate the movie and are so offended by Moore's 'portrayal' of the president: they can't tell the difference between the jokes (which are more like direct jabs sometimes, yes) and the serious content. The interviews with the woman from Flint who lost her son didn't feel too long or emotionally manipulative. They felt uncomfortable because I always feel uncomfortable watching someone grieve like that, but I don't think he kept too much of the interview like some have said. I think he was respectful of her emotions and cut away at an appropriate time.

I've heard dozens of people bitch about Moore's 'misrepresentation' of Bush, and it's just a crock (and the rest of this paragraph is really directed at them and people who talk like them). Yes, Moore did take some short clips of Bush and intersperse them within material that was unrelated (for the most part)--it was for comic relief! Get a sense of humour! Although it is used to paint the picture that Bush is a complete moron, he is a complete moron and really did say those things! If Moore had jammed his fist up Bush's ass to make him say that shit, then yeah, get pissed off all you want, people, but Dubya went and said those winners all on his own. If you just watch the clips of his speeches, he's a dumbass. If you put them in context of Moore's film, he's a dumbass. If you watch them in the speeches they originally were birthed from (as I had the displeasure to do with quite a few of them), HE'S STILL A DUMBASS!! Watch this movie and listen to that nagging voice in the back of your head that's telling you this, people, and don't vote for him again! Jeeeeez.

*exhales deeply* Damn that felt good.

The audience I saw it with was quite rowdy. All the showings ended up selling out, and everyone in the theatre (in mine, anyway) was quite vocal. A few times people yelled insults at the on-screen Bush after he said something particularly asinine, one or twice I heard people near me mutter their disagreements not quite under their breath, and there were a few explosions of laughter that were so loud I missed the next few lines of the movie. At the end of the movie (which Moore ended PERFECTLY, I might add, with my favourite Bush quote), a guy near me stood up and announced, "Don't forget to vote come November!"

One of the most interesting parts was listening to people talk as they left the theatre; some were going on about how good the movie was, others were shaking their heads and talking about what crap it was. It surprised me how many parents brought their kids, too, and not just teenagers! Some five and six year olds were ushered in by their parents, and I thought back to them when they showed the footage of bloody and charred babies and played "The Roof Is On Fire." I'm not sure how much meaning a five year old can absorb from a movie like that, but hey, good for that kid's parents for trying? *shrugs*

[Cairber]

considering the gross missrepresentation of facts in Bowling for Columbine, I will not be viewing this movie.


(since i guess people will ask what those misrepresentations were)
He claimed 565 civilians were killed in the ousting of Noriega in Panama. He took this number from the red cross; however, it was the number of military combatants (365) added to the number of civilians and nonmilitary combatants (all of Noriega's guardmen, or dobermans, were considered nonmilitary combatants). This is just one example of his ability to misrepresent the facts. I cant bring myself to sit through another movie full of this kind of (insert potty word here)

[Stravo]

considering the gross missrepresentation of facts in Bowling for Columbine, I will not be viewing this movie.


(since i guess people will ask what those misrepresentations were)
He claimed 565 civilians were killed in the ousting of Noriega in Panama. He took this number from the red cross; however, it was the number of military combatants (365) added to the number of civilians and nonmilitary combatants (all of Noriega's guardmen, or dobermans, were considered nonmilitary combatants). This is just one example of his ability to misrepresent the facts. I cant bring myself to sit through another movie full of this kind of (insert potty word here)

That's the one misrepresentation that sticks in your mind huh? The rest of the movie was ruined for you in partricular his indepth analysis of the culture of fear in teh US and the plague of violence that has no easy answer since Canada has a larger percentage of gun owners and watch more violent movies? Inetresting....

[Cairber]

that was just one...its sticks out in my mind because I am marrying a Panamanian citizen

[Darth Wong]

that was just one...its sticks out in my mind because I am marrying a Panamanian citizen

It's also what logicians call a "red-herring". Do you believe that his argument is predicated upon that figure? If not, then do you recognize that discrediting the film on that basis is fallacious?

[The Kernel]

He didn't show anything about it, no, but he did mention it at least two, if not three times that there was "only one Congressman with a child in the armed forces."

Actually, just for clarification purposes, he said only one congressman with an ENLISTED child in the armed forces. Not that this makes much of a difference to his point, but I thought I should point it out otherwise someone is going to come back saying its bullshit.

[Zaia]

Actually, just for clarification purposes, he said only one congressman with an ENLISTED child in the armed forces. Not that this makes much of a difference to his point, but I thought I should point it out otherwise someone is going to come back saying its bullshit.

You're right, you're right. Sorry.

[Cairber]

that was just one...its sticks out in my mind because I am marrying a Panamanian citizen

It's also what logicians call a "red-herring". Do you believe that his argument is predicated upon that figure? If not, then do you recognize that discrediting the film on that basis is fallacious?

that was one example, moore was sued multiple times for his misrepresentation of facts...if i had the movie here i could site a lot more of them. He used the number to say that the USA kills civilians abroad, yet he used a number that did not include only civilians; in fact, it was mostly military personale. He did this with his other numbers in that sequence. I think that when you do that kind of thing you are discrediting your documentary (which suggests FACTS, not fake numbers)

I discredit movies that misrepresent facts. Michael Moore's movie did this. therefore, I discredit his movie. This is not fallacious.

[Darth Wong]

I discredit movies that misrepresent facts. Michael Moore's movie did this. therefore, I discredit his movie. This is not fallacious.

As a reference source, no. But as an argument, yes. It is absolutely fallacious to dismiss an argument based on errors which have nothing to do with the central thesis of the argument. It would be like dismissing a documentary on the root causes of the Japanese defeat at Midway because it got some of the ship displacements wrong.

[RedImperator]

that was just one...its sticks out in my mind because I am marrying a Panamanian citizen

It's also what logicians call a "red-herring". Do you believe that his argument is predicated upon that figure? If not, then do you recognize that discrediting the film on that basis is fallacious?

that was one example, moore was sued multiple times for his misrepresentation of facts...if i had the movie here i could site a lot more of them. He used the number to say that the USA kills civilians abroad, yet he used a number that did not include only civilians; in fact, it was mostly military personale. He did this with his other numbers in that sequence. I think that when you do that kind of thing you are discrediting your documentary (which suggests FACTS, not fake numbers)

I discredit movies that misrepresent facts. Michael Moore's movie did this. therefore, I discredit his movie. This is not fallacious.

While the numbers Moore cited in Bowling in regards to the Panamanian invasion hurt his overall credibility somewhat, it's not a documentary about the war in Panama and those numbers ultimately have little bearing on his main point. Whether or not he proved that point, I'll reserve judgement, since as you know I haven't seen the film.

[Cairber]

but it discredited that section of the film, which was a good 20 minutes. Guess i Just cant get past this kind of thing. I mean, if you are going to use looney numbers, at least try and hide it I will admit that the section on columbine itself was great, I liked that part. But when he went off on the tangent that included bogus numbers, I couldnt handle it...especially when i knew the background on those numbers.