MovieChat Forums > Fahrenhype 9/11 (2004) Discussion > Question for the Right-Wingers

Question for the Right-Wingers

posted 18 years ago by Mel_Diablo
17 replies | jump to latest

When I go to Wal-Mart, I see a vast sea of right-wing retalliation. It seems to be more frequent lately. As soon as Al Franken's book; Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them came out, there were countless books refuting it. The same thing happened with Michael Moore's movie; Fahrenheit 9/11 with countless movies to refute it such as this one; Fahrenhype 9/11. Yes, they always have catchy names. Now it is happeing with Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code, and Angels and Demons, and we are seeing hundreds of books refuting these books especially The Da Vinci Code to which there is The Da Vinci Hoax, The Da Vinci Lies and Decoding the Da Vinci Code just to name a few. I haven't seen any left-wing books that attack right-wing books. There are many books that attack the right-wing, but not as many attacking specific books and/or movies like the right are doing, and by doing so it seems that you are telling us specifically what not to read.

Why do you guys feel so obligated to defend yourselves? All you ever claim is that everything we (the Left) say are lies. Well, if they are lies, why try so hard to debunk them? If we are lying about you, why try so hard to stop us? Do you have something to hide? You guys are no different from Tom Cruise when he used to always get so pissed off at tabloids for calling him gay. His raging retalliations only made him look that much gayer. Are you not worried about possibly looking like you do in fact have things you are hiding? Such rage only makes you look all the more conspicuous.

http://www.freewebs.com/melvindiablo/

[–] Supervb007 18 years ago

I gotta second you on this. Yes, liberals are starting the fire, but the conservatives keep it burning. Responding to what us liberals say just proves to us that something us up with you guys. Its what we are setting out to do in the first place, and conservatives fall right into that trap.

Hell of a thing killing a man. You take away all he's got, and all he's ever gonna have.

[–] Mad Slovak 18 years ago

When you've got "news" people like Dan Rather utilizing invented stories in order to meet his (and his producer's) liberal agenda, it's only natural that conservatives occasionally defend themselves. Talk about considering the source.

Also, in an entertainment world clearly dominated by a leftist agenda, I'd say it's accurate to surmise that most of what comes out of at least the Hollywood arena is a direct reaction to a large section of the US population. Conservatives aren't called the silent majority for nothing.

Now, please excuse me. I'm going to pop in the album by my favorite left-wing band Pearl Jam.

[–] Mad Slovak 18 years ago

Perfect examples of why conservatives, or “right-wingers” as you call them, must continue to occasionally make films in response to the liberal agenda. I realize that the following statement doesn’t apply to all liberals any more than blanketing all conservatives as fundamental Christians is true, but damned if facts aren’t like kryptonite to certain leftist-minded people...

Liberal Film Bashes Rudy Giuliani

As a 2008 presidential bid by Rudy Giuliani looks increasing likely, liberal media groups are lining up to take pot shots at the popular Republican.

The first major attack comes from a new documentary that seeks to debunk former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani as "America’s Mayor” – and has opened in Manhattan. Even its director admits the film is anything but fair and balanced.

"I’m not claiming there’s anything approaching objectivity in this film,” director Kevin Keating says about "Giuliani Time,” which is playing in one Big Apple theater.

Publicity materials for the film say it is "certain to bust open the myth of Giuliani” as America’s Mayor that developed after 9/11 and reveal his inner "totalitarian” impulses.

But a review in the City Journal calls it a "silly documentary” that "tries — and fails — to tar the record of America’s Mayor.”

Writing in the Journal, Charles Upton Sahm notes that the movie’s main indictment charges Giuliani with ushering in police tactics that led to widespread brutality against minorities.

The film delves into the tragic death of Guinean immigrant Amadou Diallo, who in 1999 was gunned down in a hail of 41 bullets by four detectives who mistakenly thought the innocent Diallo had drawn a gun – an act the movie suggests was an intentional racist outrage.

But the film fails to point out that complaints of police brutality and incidents of police shooting declined dramatically during the Giuliani administration, Sahm discloses.

Keating’s documentary tries to portray the dramatic drop in the crime rate in New York during Giuliani’s tenure – including a 70 percent reduction in murder – as merely part of a nationwide trend.

"But crime in New York fell farther and faster than crime nationwide, and continues to drop while many other cities have experienced a reversal,” Sahm writes.

"Giuliani Time” also attacks his "mean-spirited” welfare policies – which in fact led 650,000 people from a life of dependency to gainful employment.

Even more outrageously, the movie gives screen time to a local reporter who discusses Giuliani’s father’s possible links to organized crime – while acknowledging that as U.S. attorney and later as mayor, "almost no one in history has done more to combat the Mafia than Giuliani,” the City Journal article states.

As NewsMax disclosed before the movie opened, some analysts think its criticisms of Giuliani might actually help him among Republicans – many of whom are skeptical of his moderate views on abortion, gay rights and gun control – by demonstrating that he’s not a liberal.

And Sahm concludes: "New Yorkers know the real story of the Giuliani era; it’s all around them every time they walk out their front door. And no left-wing documentary will convince them otherwise, especially one as silly and patently ideological as this.”

[–] Razor187 18 years ago

Da Vinci Code has nothing to do w/ this at all. It was a popular book, so people figure they'll make money off guides that inform people what's fact and what's fiction, since the average person isn't a genius of art history. My teacher has said that the author doesn't really know anything and just took it all to make a fun story. One example that stuck w/ me was him (the author) saying that the Ecstasy of St. Tersa sculpture was removed from St. Peter's for being too racy. That's bull. In truth, it was commissioned by the Cornaro family for their church.

Number 1, I order you to go take a number 2.

[–] Mad Slovak 18 years ago

Yet one more reason why some liberals, hell bent on lying in order to further their partisan cause, need to be refuted, questioned and revealed as the lying liars they are...

Another fake soldier tale debunked
By Michelle Malkin
May 24, 2006

Meet "Jessie MacBeth." He's the latest cause celebre of the anti-war Left -- a "former Army Ranger and Iraq war veteran" who accuses his fellow troops of committing a litany of atrocities against innocent civilians. Anti-Vietnam War veteran John Kerry and the Winter Soldiers cast a long shadow.

In his 20-minute Internet video interview at peacefilms.org, which promises that watching the video "will change your life," MacBeth (who also claims to have served in Special Forces) says:

-- Superiors told him "our job over there is to strike fear in the hearts of the Iraqis . . . to be brutal and to not feel" and that "the Geneva Convention doesn't mean crap."

-- He would "do night raids, pull people out, on their knees and zip-tied," and if a man didn't answer the way he wanted him to, he "would shoot his youngest kid and keep going."

-- "By my hand alone . . . almost 200 people were taken out by me. That's just a rough estimate. A lot of them at close range . . . they would actually feel the hot muzzle of my rifle on their forehead . . . we'd do stuff that would scare them first . . . beat 'em up or kick 'em or hit the wife . . . slaughtering 30-40 people a night sometimes, women and children . . . I was trained, you know, in all the Ranger school, 18 months of that crap . . . I got disappointed in my country . . . but I didn't say anything because I would have been locked up."

-- "Other things they told us to do, man, we were ordered to go into a mosque. This really hurts me a lot. My nightmares come mostly from this . . . we infiltrated the mosque . . . a couple hundred of people of all ages were praying . . . we started slaughtering them, we started shooting them, started taking them out . . . we would burn their bodies, hang the bodies from the rafters . . . after a while, it's just sickening to think that I took part in that . . . "

-- "Kids threw rocks at us before and the guard command officer told us to take them out . . . Our job was just kill, kill, kill."

-- "I'm so disappointed in my country. I'm ashamed to have actually served in Iraq."

On the Military.com website, to which anyone can contribute, a profile of MacBeth claimed he had three basic combat jumps, service in Afghanistan as well as Iraq, and several awards including a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart.

There's just one problem: According to Department of the Army spokesman Paul Boyce, there is no record of "Jessie MacBeth," a.k.a. Jesse Adam MacBeth, having served in either the Rangers or the Special Forces -- or in any part of the Army at all. Boyce told me Tuesday that a check on MacBeth's credentials came up empty. "At a minimum, this appears to have been concocted" and "some sort of hoax," Boyce said. Special Operations Command and the State Department have been alerted.

MacBeth's story started to crumble after my colleagues at the Hot Air blog (www.hotair.com) called attention to the Peace Films video interview and asked military bloggers about MacBeth's appearance and claims. Harnessing the specialized knowledge of the blogosphere, military bloggers debunked a photo purportedly showing MacBeth in his official uniform (with his beret backward, incorrect flashes and tabs, and missing wings).

The Army's Boyce told me the uniform issues were a major "red flag" -- as were MacBeth's incredible claims to have entered the Army at 16, served as both a Ranger and in Special Ops, sustained various stabbing and shooting wounds, and exited at age 20. Not to mention all those unsubstantiated, slanderous smears against the Army Rangers (who suffered similar attacks by another lying anti-war veteran poseur, Micah Wright, in 2004).

Anti-war zealots initially defended the bogus soldier's tale, but are now moving quickly to cover up the MacBeth stain. The video was yanked Tuesday afternoon. But not to worry.

I hear former CBS producer Mary Mapes, champion of "fake but accurate" journalism, is interested in publicizing Jessie MacBeth's tall tales.

[–] Supervb007 18 years ago

Ok...please tell me exactly what your point was of posting this Mad.

Hell of a thing killing a man. You take away all he's got, and all he's ever gonna have.

[–] Mad Slovak 18 years ago

Posted the Malkin column to illustrate why the MacBeth story, just like the concocted Dan Rather documents re. George W. Bush's Vietnam career, further proves how low and partisan members of the left can be in their anger-fueled attempts to discredit damn-near anything the Bush administration does. That's my point and hopefully answers your query.

It's interesting (and pathetic) the devolution of the US Democrat Party, of which I was a member from 1988-1999), into a groupthink that starts with a preconceived opinion before cherry-picking whatever is considered factual in order to reach said conclusion.

Next.

[–] diamonddog 17 years ago

You obviously were never a member of the "Democrat Party" because no such party exists. No member of Democratic Party would call it the "Democrat" Party.

[–] losethechains 18 years ago

Giuliani lied that imported drugs from Canada are dangerous because drug companies gave him $100,000 dollars in 2000.

Peace among ourselves. Our bullets are for our own generals.

[–] bmovies 18 years ago

"When I go to Wal-Mart, I see a vast sea of right-wing retalliation. It seems to be more frequent lately. As soon as Al Franken's book; Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them came out, there were countless books refuting it."

There were? I hardly recall any books refuting Franken's book, at least coming out so soon after Franken's book.

"There are many books that attack the right-wing, but not as many attacking specific books and/or movies like the right are doing, and by doing so it seems that you are telling us specifically what not to read."

That's your imagination. You know how we would tell someone not to read something? Here's how: "Don't read that!"

"Why do you guys feel so obligated to defend yourselves? All you ever claim is that everything we (the Left) say are lies. Well, if they are lies, why try so hard to debunk them?"

Shouldn't that be obvious? Why would you want something such as a lie being told about you, to be allowed to stand unopposed? Wouldn't you want to correct the record?

"If we are lying about you, why try so hard to stop us?"

Because you're lying about us, that's why.

"Do you have something to hide?"

Ridiculous. That makes no sense. If someone tries to refute what they percieve to be a lie about them, then they have something to hide? It seems to me, people who would have something to hide would keep their mouths shut.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Captain_Bevo 17 years ago

This is fantastic. Mel Diablo, your capacity for double-think would mak George Orwell proud.

I haven't seen any left-wing books that attack right-wing books.

What would you call Farehnheit 9/11? When Michael Moore accuses the president and his cabinet of lying, he's "telling it like it is." When someone else accuses Michael Moore of lying, he's "attacking" Michael Moore, and, according to you, somehow proving Michael Moore's point. Interesting logic.

Why do you guys feel so obligated to defend yourselves? All you ever claim is that everything we (the Left) say are lies. Well, if they are lies, why try so hard to debunk them?

Let me make sure I understand: if someone produces a high-profile, Oscar-winning documentary full of fabrications, lies, and blatant contradictions, no one should make an effort to point out these flaws? Got it.

Again, this is an interesting contradiction. It is apparently acceptable for Michael Moore to make a movie claiming that George Bush is a liar, but it is NOT okay for anyone else to make a movie claiming that Michael Moore is a liar.

You guys are no different from Tom Cruise when he used to always get so pissed off at tabloids for calling him gay.

Now you're making sense. Conservatives are, without exception, exactly like Tom Cruise.

Y'all can go to hell. . .I'm goin' to Texas

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] creiche 17 years ago

I don't think your statement is correct. Conservative authors put out books all the time that are almost immediately refuted by a liberal.

Godless by Ann Coulter was released June, 2006
Soulless by Susan Estrich was released October, 2006. He book looked almost the exact same as Ann Coulter's book. The only difference between the books was Ann Coulter's book was purchased and Soulless, never has been looked at. Then we have a book by Joe Macguire called Brainless.

How about the Oh Really? Factor by Peter Hart. This book was released in September of 2003. Just months before that book was released there was a book written by Bill O'Reilly that was called The O'Reilly Factor.

That is just two examples. What bothers me is how liberals always claim to take the high road. Ask why conservatives authors attack liberal authors. Liberal authors do the exact same thing. There is a difference though. You have head of the books the rightwing commentators have put out. You haven't heard of any of these liberal authors I have said. This leads me to conclude that the authors on the right know the game, liberals don't.

However, Mel Diablo, don't try to take the high road and put liberals on a pedistal of being fair and caring and conservatives aren't. They all play the same game, sometimes one party is better than the other.

[–] lydocaine 16 years ago

During the tumultous outcry of the events of 9-11,
filmake Mike moore was quoted as saying ".......{naming a few countries}..and israel are part of the axis of evil"

I think that comment had the following ripple effects:

1. The comments outrage jewish voters
1. Moore is invited to the DNC convention and sits at a VIP table
2. Moore and his viewpoints are seen as linked to the Democratic party
in some peoples minds
3. Some portion of The Jewish vote falls awya from john Kerry because of these comments by Mike moore