Has anyone seen Fahrenheit 9/11??? Options

[SexiSurfette]

It is propaganda. It was on the news the other day. They said the fact that it's even being called a documentary is very misleading to audiences. Michael Moore did not show the full truth or even a balanced view of what really happened. Look, this first quote is from a Christian news site while the other is from a secular news site. Moore uses incorrect information to present a skewed view to the masses in hopes of swaying the public for his personal motives.

"There is very little here that anyone who has followed the politics of the past four years would consider new or revealing; for the most part, Moore's film is a merry, occasionally sentimental summary of every anti-Bush opinion column ever written.
Moore is much less interested in plumbing the ambiguities and ironies of American political life than in doing whatever it takes to manipulate his audience's sympathies.

The most striking thing about Fahrenheit 9/11 is not what Moore puts into the film, but what he leaves out.

The problem with Fahrenheit 9/11 is not that it is one-sided, per se; it is that Moore barely acknowledges there even is another side. The problem is not that he fails to give the other side equal time or equal validity; it is that he shows virtually no interest in what that other side might be, and in how he might best deal with it. Inevitably, this weakens Moore's own arguments—or it would, if he was all that concerned about making any. Moore's appeal is more emotional and visceral than intellectual; in his own way, Moore is a fearmonger, and preying on the ignorance of his audience just as he accuses Bush of doing" - Peter T. Chattaway (Christian Movies Today)

"The pitfall for Moore is not subjectivity, but accuracy. We expect him to hold an opinion and argue it, but we also require his facts to be correct. I was an admirer of his previous doc, the Oscar-winning "Bowling for Columbine," until I discovered that some of his "facts" were wrong, false or fudged.

In some cases, he was guilty of making a good story better, but in other cases (such as his ambush of Charlton Heston) he was unfair, and in still others (such as the wording on the plaque under the bomber at the Air Force Academy) he was just plain wrong, as anyone can see by going to look at the plaque."

- Roger Ebert (Chicago Suntimes)

[SexiSurfette]

"Sexi" Surfette, you can't justify that the debt has been steadily rising. When Clinton left the office, we were, for once, NOT in debt. NOW look at us. Second, that isn't personal gain, it's gain for the entire nation. You'll see . Just wait, Kerry will win.

HAHA OK... Ummm actually you’re wrong. There has always been & will always be a debt. All countries have them. Its impossible to function on such a large scale within budget. See...

I think you're confused about something.

America has always been in debt since the World Wars and Clinton did not changed that.


QUOTE 

The proof: Here are the National Debt figures from the entire Clinton administration.
09/29/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66


Do you see a reduction in the debt? I don't either, I see nothing but increases.

And about this...

You'll see . Just wait, Kerry will win.

That may be but the fact still stands: the world has always & will always feel hostility for America b/c we are the most powerful & they want to support their home country. Kerry can't change that. The only country that DOES fully support us is England & that’s b/c they are the ancestors of America. This person is right...

Yes, but Kerry's just going to do the same thing Bush is. He openly said that he wasn't going to pull the troops out. He even voted for the war.

If Kerry were elected the war wouldn’t suddenly stop & the country would not suddenly be in peace. That's a naive dream & it will never be a reality. American troops would still be there & there would still be Americans dying. May I remind you, Americans are not dying b/c Bush is the president. They are dying b/c the violent radicals have taken over after killing all of the peaceful leaders we have placed there. Kerry being president wouldn’t change the murderous people of that country. Kerry has no more controll over their actions than Bush does.

through all of this people have been bashing our Pres. and have not acknowledged the positive things has done during his time in office. Have we forgotten about the capture of Saddam?

This is true to ^^^. You’re so busy trying to bash our president (rather than being supportive) that you've forgotten the original reason for war in the 1st place. After 9/11 Bush vowed to fight terrorism. Although there was not a direct connection of Saddam to Osama, there were many connections with other terrorist groups. Therefore, going after Saddam was a logical move. Saddam Hussein was a modern day Hitler. He killed thousands of his own people weekly. And I don’t mean just by shooting them. No he was torturous. He put live people through giant meat grinders if they refused to cooperate. And like I said earlier, he didn’t just kill his own people. He plotted w/ terrorists (and was unsuccessful) to kill Bush senior when he was in office & other American politicians. That’s a direct threat to America. Saddam was a murderer & America brought him to justice. Bush brought him to justice. The war was not pointless.