Michael Moore's propaganda so twisted it is criminal. Celsius 41.11 is some what twisted to the right, but not to the same extent. If you are looking for a clear and balanced documentary, check out Fahrenhype 9/11. Don't you wish people had to pass an intelligence test prior to obtaining a voters registration card?
share[deleted]
I said an intelligence test, not a test over propaganda. Michael has secured a place in history; his film will be studied not as shining light of truth but as a failure of the first amendment.
share"Michael has secured a place in history..."
In that regard, so has Bush. Need I say more?
Failure of the first amendment? What the hell does that mean?
---
"Wanting to be someone else is a waste of the person you are."-Kurt Cobain
The only failures of fahrenheit 911 in spreading facts is that he wants so much for his beliefs to be accepted as truth that he'll find anything that when placed out of context it would appear that Bush is even worse than he is(is that even possible?). I disagree about fahrenHYPE being a middle ground. And the reason is that in contrast to fahrenheit's weaknesses, the only strong points for watching fahrenHYPE is that it is willing to point out which parts of fahrenheit are lies. People who go to see f-heit go their to see all of the 'lies Bush told' to be exposed that when shown out of context clips they don't stop to think of a possible alternative. Mainly because Moore does not give an opportunity for them to do so. That is one of my few negative feelings about Moore's work. It is completely one sided. It degrades the power of the film to see this double standard. He criticizes Bush for filling the media with anything and everything he can find that can show why to agree with him. But then Moore goes and does the same to say negative things about Bush. Just like Bush used 'evidence' that wasn't able to be backed up Moore did the same.
The only high points to f-HYPE are these exposures of Michael Moore's false statements including presenting a small side comment in an editorial as though it were a large article from a reputable source.(If I remember correctly it was in the opening scene talking of how Moore claims recounts all pointed to Gore because of this 'article' when it was only an editorial opinion and every other source announced Bush winning all the recounts.) Another example of this is when they have interviews with the State Trooper and the school teacher. The trooper stated that his comments were regarding the affects of state budget cuts and that he had no intention of them being used against Bush or in f-heit. His best statement is the kind of thing that makes Moore look bad. And that was exposing Moore's selective display of information by stating that the Troopers have no responsibility for protecting the border from Terrorists entering by water because that is the coast guards responsibility.
The greatest point in HYPEs slamming of Heit was made by the teacher at the school where Bush spoke asking "What was he supposed to do?" Which I fully agreed with since at that time he was surrounded by children and didn't want to scare them and they still didn't know all the facts about the attacks or even who were the attackers. But the makers of HYPE also conveniently leave out anti-Bush info(kind of like FOX News) such as that the biggest case for Bush 'stealing' the election was not Gore winning recounts but in fact the denial of a large number of citizen's, a large majority of which voted democrat, ability to vote and that if they had been allowed to vote, based on their voting of democrats it would have put Gore in the lead therefore giving him the election.
As you can probably tell I oppose Bush and hope that Kerry wins this november.
It was my anti-Bush stance that led me to the purchase of Rock Against Bush vol.s 1 & 2. They are two cd/dvd sets from Fat Wreck Chords(The record label of Punk Rock band NOFX) which combines political themed music featuring not just punk but other Rock music with political media. Part of the media portion is comedy. The first albums comedy consists of a David Cross bit which can be heard in his album 'Shut up you *beep* baby' and there is also a section of 'Bush in 30 seconds ad contest winners' which has some serious and some funny parts. The second volume has better comedy including 'Bush Straight Talk' starring Will Farrell along with a couple other bits. But the main reason I'm carrying on about this is the dvd's inclusion of alternate media. The second one features a chapter on the 2000 election from a BBC documentary and both contain large part of multiple independent media productions.
The reason I say this is because in my opinion there is no 'which is better to watch, HYPE, Heit, or Celsius?' because all three hold strong biases. Any documentary will lead towards they direction of the opinion they are stating but independent media and media from other nations don't force their opinion of you. If you are going to watch Heit you should watch HYPE and Celsius, and vice versa. You need to get both sides instead of assuming that everything thing you are being told is the truth, because isn't that the reason that dissenting media documentaries are created? To tell their opinion of what happened? If you are just going to assume Heit is correct and vote for Kerry you are just as bad that the people who don't watch Heit because they assume the news is the truth and vote for Bush. And the same can be said about Hype and Celsius because none of these three are the whole truth. They are only part of it. And you need to get information from both sides including the heavily one sided and the ones that are almost nuetral because you have to admit that the American media doesn't exactly do a great job telling both sides. The closest thing to unbiased reporting was when Bill Mahr said that the terrorist weren't cowards for crashing a plane into a building because it took bravery. He is an American telling American news and in a time of tragedy he was willing to give another perspective. And we all know what happened to him. It is our responsibility as voters to seek out multiple forms of media if the mainstream will not give it to us. Punkvoter.com give links to many forms of independent media in America and there is also the option of going on to the websites of the U.K. or Canada or any newspaper that is in a language you can understand. Rock Against Bush gave a few examples of independent documentaries that weren't as slanted as fahrenheit 9/11 and I'm sure there are just as many documentaries in favor of Bush that are as slanted as fahrenhype 9/11 or celsius 41.11.
So if you take one thing any of these three documentaries or any other it should be the knowledge that it is one sides opinion and if you limit yourself to saying 'This is the one everybody should see' than you are shutting off so much more information that is readily available to you.
As for an IQ test to get voter registration. The only thing they should require that anyone who votes is given multiple persectives and that they aren't dumb enough to make a decision based on what they are told before getting all of these perspectives and making a decision on what they believe what their opinion is. I want Bush out of offices. But I don't want him replaced by a bunch of people voting based on Michael Moore's opinion.
As for Hype vs Heit(in case that's the only reason you were reading this...granted you still are) Both present their case strongly with people supporting their views but just like their are Michael Moore's willing to make documentaries against Bush their are companies making them for Bush. And in my opinion the anti-Kerry moving should have been allowed to be aired. Their are plenty of people in Washington the still trust the actions and the statements of Bush just like their are plenty of people their who's little voice in their head that unfortunately most American's silence(silenced in the case of past events that have led to tragedy and death)when it hears something being said and responds 'bullsh*t'. Moore presents his side more thuroughly, and with stronger statements including interviews and images that go straight to heart and also supports his claims with more documentation. But Hype showed how Moore is willing to and has distorted the truth and therefore although not being as powerful or thurough as Heit the fact that it reveals Moore's underhanded tactics give it credibility in contrast. Heit was better produced but Hype tried harder to not sound like a 'fat stupid white man' to use the title of an anti-Michael Moore book.
Check them both out. Heit got a wider viewing due to Moore's noteriety. But HYPE should be given just as much attention.
You need to do a little more homework. go to www.davidkopel.com and read a little (50 pages) about the lies in Moore's work...David Kopel is a Democrat and voted for Nader in 2000.
share"Don't you wish people had to pass an intelligence test prior to obtaining a voters registration card?"
Absolutely! If you look at the stats, the most educated people in the country vote overwhelmingly Democratic. Bring on the IQ test for voting!
But no, ultimately, we must allow our uneducated brethren to drive us into a ditch and destroy the country... and... given time... the world.
"The most educated people in the country vote overwhelmingly democratic."
'I'm ignorant and I vote. It should be a bumper sticker.' -David Cross
Also an independent poll stated that an estimated 70 percent of the American public prefer more liberal ideas and favor the policy of democrats as opposed to republicans, including Bush. Policies included in this poll included that a majority of Americans would be willing to pay higher taxes if it ment a socialized medicine plan which guarrenteed every American health coverage and pro-choice to pro-life, among other less notable policies. Yet a majority of the people surveyed voted republican in recent elections. But you must consider this was done independently and I don't know the name of the company that conducted it or how far it reach and the different voter groups involved. So take it as you will.
And although I do prefer Kerry to Bush, this was funny enough to point out.
According to the book 'Unusually Stupid Americans' a constituent sent two letters to John Kerry in January. Same name, same address. Except that one supported Kerry's statements against the Iraq war and thanked him for opposing Bush. The other letter thanking him for his voting in favor of Bush sending troops to Iraq and giving W. the authority. That constituent received responces to both to the same name and address. Both letters were form letters from the Kerry campaign. One thanked them for their support of Sen. Kerry and stated that from the beginning he was opposed to any action against Iraq. And the second thanked them for their support of Sen. Kerry and stated that he has supported the war since the beginning. But you can't blame Kerry, he does come from a party that sent a form letter from Al Gore in 2000 saying that 'I need you by my side to win the election' to the home of George W. Bush.
It's up to the American people to decide which is dumber, either of those two. Or when Michael Moore received a thank you form letter from one canidate and multiple canidates cashed the checks when he created four 'interest groups' in support of growing hemp, abortion, pedophilia and satan worship and sent them to the four Presidential canidates in 1996.
Finally, in responce to the tip that I 'do my homework'.
I'm always willing to get another opinion so I'll check that out. As for Moore's lies. If the only people saying something are Michael Moore and people quoting him than I don't take it too seriously. Which is why I say Celsius, Hype, and Heit should be given the same attention. Seeing as how all three are glorified propaganda. Alternate media does not mean you should go watch extremist documentaries. I prefer reputable sources. I'll watch movies like Heit, HYPE, and Celsius. But I'll keep in mind they are only movies. Also I absolutely refuse to take seriously anyone who's responce to "President Bush was Democratically Elected" is "So was Adolf Hitler". Even if every single thing Moore says about Bush were true it still wouldn't put him close to the Mass Genocide of 6Mil+ and being involved in a World War. In order for anybody to be able to compare Bush to Hitler Bush would have to first invade Canada and Mexico and justify it by saying that since they are part of North America they are Americans and he wan't to free them from oppression of their unAmerican governments; then decide that we should rid the world of people of Mid-Eastern decent since that's where the terrorists are; and finally form an alliance with a few other countries(third world countries don't count this time, so I guess he'll have to stick with U.K. and Australlia) and declare war on all the countries that oppose his action and wish to stop him from taking over the war; all that while finding someway to ignore the constitution so much that he can become a totalitarian dictatator. All that in four years would make him a busy man. Not too much time in Crawford. But if he were to ever do that stuff then people can compare him to Hitler. But since we all know that although the gvt has given Bush some leeway due to 'National Security'(Hell, Congress got a 60,000 $PY raise as a National Security measure right after 9/11) they would never allow him to go that far and do any of the aforementioned their is absolutely 0% chance. So no matter what Bush does he will never be a genocidal facist dictator.
My biggest problem with Michael Moore: His statement that their is no terroist threat in America. Although he may be right that their is no greater threat post 9/11 than their was pre 9/11 their still are terrorists and their still were terrorists. 9/11 simply gave the American people awareness of their presence and the Bush Admin is making sure they stay aware. I don't believe that we are overestimating the presence of terrorists now. I believe we were underestimating the presence of terrorists then. We need to live as good as we can and hope that the people who stopped the 9/11's from taking place pre 9/11 continue to do so post 9/11. What we don't need is an extremist like Michael Moore telling us how we are wasting time and money on terrorism and need to stop worrying about it because their is no threat. But going out an bombing the countries where terrorist are and costing the lives of thousands of civilians DOES created MORE terrorists. We need to find a better way to solve are problems.
"We are a war like people.", "We like war because we're good at it", -George Carlin
Isn't the truth funny....
You seem an inherently practical person, yet you seem to have a bit of problem matching your rhetoric to the point it was meant to address:
The comparison of Bush to Hitler you cite is specifically meant to refute that the democratic election of someone to office naturally makes the decisions he or she makes something you should accept without question or hesitation. Plenty of people have made the comparison to Bush to Hitler in the way you argue against, but that's not the point of the rhetoric you cite. So why wouldn't you take such a person seriously? It's MEANT to shock you into reconsidering your *argument*, not meant to make you think that Bush will kill millions of people given half the chance (thousands, sure, but that's another story, eh?).
But, hmmm... ignoring the Constitution? Check. "If you're not with us, you're against us?" Check. Horrifying use of religious rhetoric? Check.
And why would he have to do it all in four years? Get rid of that pesky amendment that limits the number of times he can be elected President and he can spend as much time in Crawford as he wants.
As far as taking on the world in a war? Believe it or not, I just had the stunning argument with a Republican who was claiming that we should do what we want to any country, no matter who it pisses off. If invading North Korea means war with China, so be it. I kid you not.
"the most educated people in the country vote overwhelmingly Democratic"
The statistics are not independent, this is a myth propagated by the Democratic Party.
"we must allow our uneducated brethren to drive us into a ditch and destroy..."
To which ditch are your referring? The ditch of: political correctness, welfare state, moral ambiguity, class warfare, turning a blind eye to the founding fathers, etc…
We have about 6 years until the bureaucracy of BIG government begins to crumble. The cracks are visible and they run all the way back to FDR.
Neither major party will survive past 2022, though the Democrats bare a larger portion of the responsibility.
Add this to your education because a little perspective never hurts.
FDR...led us into World War II.
Germany never attacked us: Japan did.
From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost an average of 112,500 per year.
Truman...finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea never attacked us.
From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost an average of 18,334 per year.
John F. Kennedy took over the Vietnam conflict in 1962…from the French.
Johnson...turned Vietnam into a quagmire.
From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost an average of 5,800 per year.
Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent, Bosnia never attacked us.
Clinton was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.
In the two years since terrorists attacked us President Bush has...liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.
The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking, but...It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51-day operation.
We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.
It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.
It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!!
Our Commander-In-Chief is doing a GREAT JOB! The Military morale is high! 68% of the military strongly support the President.
The biased media hopes we are too ignorant to realize the facts.
"....the most educated people in the country vote overwhelmingly Democratic
The statistics are not independent, this is a myth propagated by the Democratic Party. "
On this you are completely incorrect. These polls have been conducted by very reliable and neutral pollsters like Zogby and even Republican-leaning ones, like Gallup. If you want to believe whatever bull the Republicans feed you, that's you're option. Please don't insult the rest of us by regurgitating it. Perhaps you would like to counter that the overwhelming majority of churchgoers favor the Republicans. There's at least some legitimate and honest argument to be posed in the realm of the intellectual vs. the spiritual.
"FDR...led us into World War II."
After Japan attacked us.
"Germany never attacked us: Japan did."
Duh. And Japan was in direct alliance with Germany and Italy. As long as you're "educating us" with your "perspective" perhaps a few third grade history books should be on your reading list.
"From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost an average of 112,500 per year."
And despite this, WWII had the overwhelming support of the American people.
"Truman...finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea never attacked us."
Very good point. And this is just part of the reason that it was a very unpopular war. Sorry "police action". The only reason it doesn't have the incredibly hurtful reputation that Vietnam has is we didn't try to stick with with it.
"John F. Kennedy took over the Vietnam conflict in 1962?from the French.
Johnson...turned Vietnam into a quagmire."
Yes and yes. And again. Mostly very unpopular. And let's not forget Dick Nixon's "secret plan" to get us out. Only after he sinks himself further into the quagmire does he finally pull us out. Secret plan, my ass.
"Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent, Bosnia never attacked us."
As a humanitarian effort to prevent another "ethnic cleansing" debacle on the scale with those in WWII. As part of a NATO action, NOT an American war. And remember: Clinton didn't put troops on the ground and lost not a single American life. Oh wait. You're mister bodycount. You must know that.
"Clinton was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions."
Actually, whether considered sufficient or not in the context of the times, he fired cruise missles at his known location. In retrospect, it's easy to claim that he should have done more. But put into context, even at this piddling action Republicans accused Clinton of trying to "wag the dog". Bad old Republicans.
"The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking, but...It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51-day operation.
We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.
It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.
It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!!"
Oh my God. Dude, you're only proving my original point about educated people. Define "take Iraq". In case you haven't noticed, we haven't "Taken Iraq". Do you mean the time from when we bombed that first compound to when the Flight Suit Monkey declared Mission Accomplished (and before you pull the Republican BS about how it was the sailors who made that sign, dig a little deeper and you'll find the stories where they admitted that the administration actually did make it.)
Look, anyone (and I mean ANYONE) who claims that one party is perfect and makes no mistakes throughout written history is an idiot. But the big bad difference is-- which party LEARNS from the mistakes of history? Iraq had its object lesson in Vietnam. Too bad the party busy avoiding military service didn't even bother to READ about it in the paper... or the history books. Or, God forbid, reading some of the history of the Middle East before they put troops on the ground.
Oh wait. Original point. Education. Literacy. It all makes sense now...
[deleted]
"On this you are completely incorrect. These polls have been conducted by very reliable and neutral pollsters like Zogby and even Republican-leaning ones, like Gallup. If you want to believe whatever bull the Republicans feed you, that's you're option. Please don't insult the rest of us by regurgitating it. Perhaps you would like to counter that the overwhelming majority of churchgoers favor the Republicans. There's at least some legitimate and honest argument to be posed in the realm of the intellectual vs. the spiritual."
You seem to be slick on crafting a response but like most of your generation, "Dude", you are incapable of locating the truth. Possessing an education and holding a degree from one of many liberal fluff and fold for the synapse, contrast sharply. I’m referring to individuals that actually work for a living, not someone who is a captive of the system.
If you want a European style welfare state, take a French class next semester then live abroad…until you expire.
What about the rest of the message?
---
"Wanting to be someone else is a waste of the person you are."-Kurt Cobain
[deleted]
Gee, I'm sorry I haven't been monitoring these messages for a while...
But, dude, if you've got such a high IQ, you'd know the difference between "anecdotal evidence" and "statistical evidence". Since you don't, I'm going to have to guess that you had the answers to the IQ test written on your sleeve.
Anyone who tells people that their friends and themselves have 'genius-level' IQ's has either:
1. Read 'Moby Dick' and thinks that makes them a Scholar
2. Is 12 years old
3. Is feeling self-concious about siding with Republicans.
If you and your precious friends are that damn smart, you'd know that IQ tests haven't been taken seriously (as a scale to measure intelligence) since the 60's.
While I would like to believe you are correct in this matter
Timed testing of aptitudes such as SAT, LSAT GMAT, GRE, etc.
Are all de facto IQ tests?
They ALL test inductive reasoning and a select certain few aptitudes and pit ones persons select few aptitudes against others aptitudes in those FEW certain areas
Howard Gardner theorizes we may have, as individuals, a many as 30-40 different aptitudes.
SOCIETALLY we treasure and choose to sort a select out only a few of these APTITUDES
IF you have them---YOUR SMART---if not----YOU’RE A DUMMY-----!!!!!
Our standardized testing does the sorting and selecting------WE JUST DON’T CALL THEM IQ TEST’S ANYMORE
Who knew all the geniuses hung out on the IMDb boards? Who knew every Republican shares their above-average IQ with everyone they meet?
shareBeing "educated" does not equate to being intelligent or having a high I.Q. Never has. Being able to memorize material well enough to pass a bunch of dumbed down exams and tests will enable you to become educated. But being able to analyze facts and distinguish between garbage and reality; that's a sign of real intelligience.
Your arrogance is showing; so is your ignorance.
Merlyn-1 sez:
"If you look at the stats, the most educated people in the country vote overwhelmingly Democratic. Bring on the IQ test for voting!"
A few points to consider:
1) Most of the professors who indoctrinated the most educated people in the country also vote Democratic -- no surprises there.
2) Did you go to college? Did you know any stupid people there? I did.... I'd be very curious to see what IQ test scores across the general population look like compared to IQ test scores of college-educated Americans.
3) Along with the most educated people in the country, convicted felons also vote overwhelmingly Democratic: http://scienceblog.com/cms/node/708
Ivory tower elites, rapists and murderers, working together to build a better America. Scary.
The most significant thing here is that the Bush camp feel so threatened by Moore's movie that they shell out big bucks to make several debunk movies. I guess I'm gonna watch Farenheit 911 afterall. If they're this scared, there must be some truth to it.
shareTo the guy who said Bush has secured a place in history (who I assume is a fellow democrat like me)
He most certainly has. He has replaced Andrew Johnson, Warren G Harding, Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover as the worst president ever. He is also the only president to be convicted of a crime (DUI).
"You're not from the IRS, you just glued my pubes onto your face!"-Scott Tenorman, South Park
I seem to recall that Bill Clinton was guilty of lying to a federal frand jury, an offense for which he was disbarred.
share"I guess I'm gonna watch Farenheit 911 afterall."
It's your money, at least 62% of it is.
First off, we shouldn't even be in Iraq. There is no hard evidence that I have seen that says Saddam has anything to do with Bin Laden. Bush is trying to make his daddy love him by doing something he could not.
Secondly, Bush and his people worry more about who can marry who than getting Bin Laden. Bush needs to get his priorities straight.
We live in a land of religious freedom, not a land of Evangelical Christians, though Bush is trying to change that. I believe in God, read the Bible, and live what I feel to be a very moral life. But I am Catholic. I like to believe what I want, I don't want that taken away. I don't want the Pat Robertsons and Jerry Falwells of the world on the TV. I want my Sportscenter, I want my Spike TV and my E!
Luke 12:57
Matthew 6: 5-8
Catholicism is a cult
http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Cults/Catholicism/isitcult.htm
The only difference between a cult and a religion are how many members it has. So no, Catholicism isn't a cult. With your logic we could call Christianity a cult too. All because a religion has different beliefs to Christianity does not mean that it's a cult, you narrow-minded tool.
---
"Wanting to be someone else is a waste of the person you are."-Kurt Cobain
Why don't these people ever point to specifics and discuss using facts.
They speak as though FahrenYIPE 9/11 was some paramount of truth
EXAMINE THE SOURCE, LOOK AT THEIR POLITICS----these are silly people
Ann Coulter----REALLY----????
THAT ALONE---should discredit anything
Someone who proclaimed that anyone who was opposed to STARWARS was a traitor.
Opposing something that didn't and still doesn't work and is a black hole for taxpayer’s money is a TRAITOR
THE REFERSE COULD IN FACT BE ARGUED SINCE IT APPEARS THE WHOLE THING IS A GET RICH SCHEME FOR MILITARY INDUSTIALISTS
Hahaha, oh man. Fahrenhype 9/11 was a horrible attempt to cover up the LITTLE bit of information Moore included in his movie.
shareno, it was a valiant attempt to show the uneducated(liberal) masses that Michael Moore lied, and still lies, and that Bush cares about America, Moore cares about America's money.
shareWHat's funny, Dick Morris, who doesn't judge based on his politics, he just tells it as it is. Had an article the other day, that said republican voters are the most informed voter there is.
shareWhen I look for a clear and balanced documentry I need not look any further than the world outside my house. In case you haven't noticed theres an illegal war going on. A True patriot such as yourself would want our soldiers alive and fighting for just causes not bush's causes. Yes I do wish people had to pass an intelligence test prior to voting because that would eliminate everyone and the kkk from voting for Bush in 04.
share