Farenheit 9/11 trailer now online

[seinfeldrules]

Well he can have all the degrees he wants, doesnt mean it still just isnt an opinion. No more valid then say, Hannity's. Most teachers are also liberal (especially the northeast) anyways. Not suprising.

 

[CptStern]

they gave him the top award for best film, the Palme d'or

 

[seinfeldrules]

Again, most artists, directors, actors, teachers, reporters etc. are liberal. Its not suprising they give the award to the one who bashes conservatives the most.

 

[CptStern]

Well he can have all the degrees he wants, doesnt mean it still just isnt an opinion. No more valid then say, Hannity's. Most teachers are also liberal (especially the northeast) anyways. Not suprising.

sigh....like talking to a wall. When you read my posts do you plug your ears and hum the stars and stripes?

You have no idea who Chomsky is yet you dismiss his work because you think that it is based on opinion? you dont receive all this because of your opinion

 

[CptStern]

Again, most artists, directors, actors, teachers, reporters etc. are liberal. Its not suprising they give the award to the one who bashes conservatives the most.

do you hear yourself? you would have made a great mccarthy era whistleblower

look there's a liberal!, lets lynch him!!!

 

[seinfeldrules]

Nah, I dont have anything against them personally, I just dont take most things they do seriously. Although, lynching may not be all that bad of an idea...

That article didnt tell me anything regarding his historical opinions either. That is what truly matters. If Einstein had supported Hitler would you of believed him because he was truly brilliant? Nah, you need to take in everyone else's opinions to formulate your own.

 

[Dsty2001]

Michael Moore is just another clueless Liberal who would rather defend the terrorists or enemy than his own country. Almost all of his work is half truth and whole lies, and he edits the parts out of his film that he doesn't agree with. It's already been proven Moore is a flat out liar, I don't see how anybody (besides hardcore Liberals) could take his crap seriously.

 

[Dsty2001]

and you dont see how stupid your remark is? Everybody knows that hollywood is a fair cross section of american culture...if that was true half the actors would be fat and slow witted

That right there proved to me your absolutely clueless. EVERYBODY knows Hollywood is mostly hardcore Liberal. ANYBODY that would think otherwise is a brainwashed fool. And you've already proved yourself to be that.

 

[Sparta]

yeah i read an article in today's Herald Sun about him. Apparently he is extremely hard to work with and edits everything that is filmed that he doesnt agree with. Alot of his former employee's call him hypocritical

 

[Dsty2001]

Like I said, how anybody takes Michael Moore is beyond my believe....Michael Moore is a proven a liar, a hypocrite, and a flat out Anti-American bafoon who will do anything to make America look bad. But yet, the Liberals praise his work like he is a godsend. It's really pathetic

 

[Sparta]

Can someone please tell me what the differance is between a liberal, democrat and a republican are?

 

[Dsty2001]

Can someone please tell me what the differance is between a liberal, democrat and a republican are?

Well, Liberal is the hardcore version of a Democrat, Conservative is a hardcore version of a Republican. Here is how to explain the parties

Democrats tend to lean toward the enviromental area and the open minded area. But their biggest weakness is they tend to be very Anti-War and get a little carried away with the Enviromental area. They also think Freedom should go as far as allowing an organization such as NAMBLA.. because they say they have the right to.

Republicans are more strict and tend to be more in the Economy/Industry area and are more religious than the Democrats. They also tend to lean toward war when needed unlike the Democrats. The Republicans weakness is the fact they get carried away with the Industry area which ends up sometimes hurting smaller businesses.

I'm in between a Republican & Democrat

 

[Sprafa]

Democrats tend to lean toward the enviromental area and the open minded area. But their biggest weakness is they tend to be very Anti-War and get a little carried away with the Enviromental area. They also think Freedom should go as far as allowing an organization such as NAMBLA.. because they say they have the right to.

Republicans are more strict and tend to be more in the Economy/Industry area and are more religious than the Democrats. They also tend to lean toward war when needed unlike the Democrats. The Republicans weakness is the fact they get carried away with the Industry area which ends up sometimes hurting smaller businesses.

I'm in between a Republican & Democrat

Vote for the Green Party.

 

[The Mullinator]

I don't understand how Americans can stand only having two major parties, each somewhat extreme compared to the other. It seems like most Americans I talk to are in between democrat and republican but you don't have anyone to represent you in the middle. It must suck.

Here in Canada we have 3 major political parties (Most people outside of Quebec won't count the bloc-quebecois), we have the NDP which is basically your democrats but is slightly more left leaning, the conservatives which are pretty much the exact same as your republicans, and the liberals which unlike its name implies lies smack in the middle of the NDP and Conservatives in the political spectrum.

For the last decade the liberals have been in power with a large majority but that may change in July when the election happens as there has been a nasty scandal following them.

 

[Stormy]

Makes me laught that Bush is on holiday 80% of the time.

 

[Direwolf]

That two party system has been driving most people nuts forever. What it has resulted in however is that while the parties may at sometimes seem extreme the actual candidates for positions such as president are usually filled by more moderate people. Hell, it seems like in many elections its become difficult to find the difference between the two candidates.

 

[ferd]

A note: look into Charleton Heston's past.
Check out what really happened at those NRA meetings, what his actual speeches were, and why in "Columbine" one of the people at the forefront of the Civil Rights movement looks like a racist.
This is what first made me question some of Moore's stuff, and five minutes on Google will let you make up your own mind.

I think those site and such dont let you make up your own mind, it's the contrary.

Btw, in BFC they never said the meetings happened because of the incident...they simply said that it was inapropriate, and they were right to

 

[ferd]

Well, Liberal is the hardcore version of a Democrat, Conservative is a hardcore version of a Republican. Here is how to explain the parties

Democrats tend to lean toward the enviromental area and the open minded area. But their biggest weakness is they tend to be very Anti-War and get a little carried away with the Enviromental area. They also think Freedom should go as far as allowing an organization such as NAMBLA.. because they say they have the right to.

Republicans are more strict and tend to be more in the Economy/Industry area and are more religious than the Democrats. They also tend to lean toward war when needed unlike the Democrats. The Republicans weakness is the fact they get carried away with the Industry area which ends up sometimes hurting smaller businesses.

I'm in between a Republican & Democrat

the pro of the republicans dont weigh up to their contra's at all if you ask me
party's like that get ass-raped in europe

 

[Adidajs]

Makes me laught that Bush is on holiday 80% of the time.

care to back that up?

Michael Moore probably gets his facts straight, but it doesn't mean he edits/cuts his films to persuade his audience. It's obvious he is biased against the conservative Republican block and he will go to lengths denigrate the Bush administration/family. Who gives a shit if Moore won the Palm d'Or in the Cannes Film festival. Did any of you actually read that BBC review that was posted? You would believe that Bush would intentionally let 2000 people die because he was in bed with the Bin Laden family? I cannot believe someone would even suggest that. Look Bush may mispronounce words (hell i would if i spoke to a national audience of 250million +the rest of the world), but he's not stupid and he's certainly not going to let innocent Americans die. Honestly i think Gore would have done the EXACT same thing if he was in office. Michael Moore is certainly not a stupid man. In fact he's the antithesis. He knows that most americans are stupid, he knows that half the country voted for Gore, and he knows all americans are appalled at 9/11. Why not make a film blaming the Bush Administration, who had ALL that time to prepare and stop the terrorist attack.(did anyone watch some of the 9/11 commission hearings. OMG. Certain Families of victims were blaming Bush when it was the terrorists who killed their loved ones. We would have stopped it if we had the intel, which we DIDN"T).

 

[Dsty2001]

Why not make a film blaming the Bush Administration, who had ALL that time to prepare and stop the terrorist attack

Proof that Bush had all the time and even knew they was going to strike the WTC?

Besides, 9/11 wouldn't have happened if it wasn't for Clinton. Clinton had 5 chances to get Osama, and was even offered Osama 3 times, but yet he denied the Offer. Of course, blame Bush, that's what most uninformed people do these days

 

[Sprafa]

Besides, 9/11 wouldn't have happened if it wasn't for Clinton. Clinton had 5 chances to get Osama, and was even offered Osama 3 times, but yet he denied the Offer. Of course, blame Bush, that's what most uninformed people do these days

bwahahaha!!! Clinton fired Tomahawks repeatedly trying to get Laden. And now he had "5 chances" and didn't even tried!!!!

Do a favour to yourself and stop posting misinformed crap.

Waht about Reagan, a Republican that funded Laden and his buddy Al-Zawahiri (which is the true mastermind of Al-Quaeda, Bin Laden just came in with the money and took over) in Afghanistan, to defeat the Soviets?

 

[Dsty2001]

bwahahaha!!! Clinton fired Tomahawks repeatedly trying to get Laden. And now he had "5 chances" and didn't even tried!!!!

Oh yes, firing Tomahawks at Terrorist camps Clinton knew that Saddam wasn't at! THATS REALLY TRYING TO GET HIM! OH YEAH BOY! YOU quit trying to post misinformation buddy. Read a few books and grow a brain before posting bullshit.

 

[Korgoth]

Oh yes, firing Tomahawks at Terrorist camps Clinton knew that Saddam wasn't at! THATS REALLY TRYING TO GET HIM! OH YEAH BOY! YOU quit trying to post misinformation buddy. Read a few books and grow a brain before posting bullshit.

Clinton wasn't shooting them at saddam, he was aiming for bin laden...

 

[Direwolf]

Something that always bothered me a little: The US did indeed fund and to some extent supply Bin Laden. But he was just one of about thirty of fourty leaders that we did the same for. We didn't fund him exclusively, nor think of him as anything other than another leader fighting against the Soviets.

 

[CptStern]

the US has a long history of funding terrorists, tyrants and despots:

Noreiga (Panama), Saddam, Pol Pot, Shah of Iran(1953), Ngo Dinh Diem(south vietnam), "Papa Doc" Duvalier (haiti), Castelo Branco (brazil), General Suharto (Indonisia), Mobutu Sese Seko (butcher of Zaire), Hugo Banzer (Bolivia), Augusto Pinochet (Chile), Jonas Savimbi (Angola), Anastasios Samoza (Niceragua) ...and others

 

[Direwolf]

I think thats in line with the lesser of two evils approach. Pact with a demon in echange for the devil. And as that list shows there is no garuntee that won't backfire.

 

[CptStern]

in some cases the cia overthrew a democratically elected government and installed a tyrant..for example Haiti and "Papa Doc" Duvalier

 

[Adidajs]

Proof that Bush had all the time and even knew they was going to strike the WTC?

Besides, 9/11 wouldn't have happened if it wasn't for Clinton. Clinton had 5 chances to get Osama, and was even offered Osama 3 times, but yet he denied the Offer. Of course, blame Bush, that's what most uninformed people do these days

Sarcasm. no way did Bush know about it.

 

[Pogrom]

in some cases the cia overthrew a democratically elected government and installed a tyrant..for example Haiti and "Papa Doc" Duvalier

Yep - it's just a fact that the US prefers governments that are friendly to US interests.

If there is a democratically elected government that is anti-US, the US would prefer a tyrannical despot who sucks up to the US.

Which makes the current 'nation building' exercise in Iraq a joke, really.

 

[Lil' Timmy]

hahaha, wow.. the sheer amount of non-information flying around in this thread is amazing.. how about you all take a page from the beloved/reviled chomsky and 'do the research for yourselves' instead of just repeating the last thing you heard your favorite politician say about w/e subject is at hand? i especially like how everyone's a michael moorre biographer all of the sudden..

 

[Gunner]

the US has a long history of funding terrorists, tyrants and despots:

Noreiga (Panama), Saddam, Pol Pot, Shah of Iran(1953), Ngo Dinh Diem(south vietnam), "Papa Doc" Duvalier (haiti), Castelo Branco (brazil), General Suharto (Indonisia), Mobutu Sese Seko (butcher of Zaire), Hugo Banzer (Bolivia), Augusto Pinochet (Chile), Jonas Savimbi (Angola), Anastasios Samoza (Niceragua) ...and others

I can't ****ing believe you put the Shah of Iran in there. Please edit your post and remove him or I will be seriously pissed.

 

[Sprafa]

Oh yes, firing Tomahawks at Terrorist camps Clinton knew that Saddam wasn't at!

Saddam? WTF are you talking about boy?

 

[seinfeldrules]

bwahahaha!!! Clinton fired Tomahawks repeatedly trying to get Laden. And now he had "5 chances" and didn't even tried!!!!

Clinton was offered Osama by the Sudan on numerous occasions. As in they had him, or his location, and was willing to hand him over to the US. Clinton denied ALL of the offers because he didnt have enough 'legal' authority to take such action. Wow, showed some real effort there :stare:

 

[CptStern]

I can't ****ing believe you put the Shah of Iran in there. Please edit your post and remove him or I will be seriously pissed.

oooohh now I'm shaking, why not read up on history and turn your venom on your own government? try these words in google "shah Iran 1953 SAVAK"....or better yet ask your congressmen why the CIA helped set up Iran's notorious secret police SAVAK which killed thousands

 

[Gunner]

I'm Iranian, so don't preach me on my country's history.

 

[Sprafa]

I'm Iranian, so don't preach me on my country's history.

Where are you now? Imigrated I guess, to have acess to a free internet.

 

[Sprafa]

Clinton was offered Osama by the Sudan on numerous occasions. As in they had him, or his location, and was willing to hand him over to the US. Clinton denied ALL of the offers because he didnt have enough 'legal' authority to take such action. Wow, showed some real effort there :stare:

He was not a threat at the time. And Sudan was trying to be forgiven by loads of shit for that. If they acepted, they would be in debt with them.

As soon as he became a threat, Clinton ordered his physical elimination.

 

[seinfeldrules]

He wasnt a threat? How about the first WTC bombing, maybe that could of been taken as a little hint. Hmmmmm...

 

[Gunner]

Where are you now? Imigrated I guess, to have acess to a free internet.

In France :-(

 

[clarky003]

Sarcasm. no way did Bush know about it.

its the unthinkable isnt it,

the strange thing is, there was no real proof who was in those planes. wheres the black box recorders...? have the government shared that with the public... cant remember but I dont think they did... usually you base it on facts .

and really bush blammed Sadam out of the blue.. no evidence, just stating that they had evidence. which doesnt justify or clarify anything. I mean its really worrying. :|

we still dont know what went wrong in those planes. the only people to tell us they where hijacked by Iraqi's where Rumsfeld and Bush.. but wheres the solid evidence.. all they did was point the fingure and find a few passports, and info on random Iraqi's who we where told where part of Bin Laden's regime..? :| .

id just say dont rule this out.. i know it sounds propostorous.. but ask yourself.. what is he doing really?? what is he doing to help you in the immediate future.. pissing more Iraqi's off... :O ?. what is he playing around at when there considering drafting.. I thought the armies where plentiful? ... and whats this I heard about a 40 million dollar Oil pipeline ( or was it billion?),planned to be built under the caspian sea over in Iraq?...

im in the dark,, I dont know what to believe anymore. to the point where my instinct tells me that theres been lies round every corner. prolonged to the next lie, so you forget about the last strange occurance that doesnt make sense, its a bombardment of confusion inducing fear,.. If thats there plan its working on alot of people