Fahrenheit 9/11...

[Eiade]

and so you see, this bush war could have started with nothing but a simple 2:1 ratio and the human sheep psyche that follows. and you cant debate against your own built in thought processes.

 

I don't think that statement has any merit. It could've started that way, but it didn't. I think that everyone debating on this topic isn't debating just because they think they're with the winning side. They're debating because they think that their opinion is correct. That's what debating is.

[UberBender]

I think one of the biggest flaws in his movie is the issue of Saudis having money in our country.

 

We are capitalists, it's what we do.

 

Then he goes on to complain about the economy and joblessness.

 

Well don't you think that Saudi's money would help our economy and maybe give us new jobs?

 

He needs to think about what he is saying before he contridicts himself.

 

And it is stupid how he gets all mad at Bush for none of the people reading the Patirot act. It's those people's fault for not reading it! Not Bush's!

[Eiade]

I think one of the biggest flaws in his movie is the issue of Saudis having money in our country.

 

Yes, but the point was that the Saudis put a lot of their money in an oil company owned by the Bush family. Moore suggested that this is probably the reason for Bush not attacking Saudi Arabia even though he had sufficient evidence to do so. I don't really agree with him there, though.

[UberBender]

First he complains about not going to war and then he complains about Bush engaging in war.

[surian]

Ever hear about the "sausage theory" on lawmaking? The theory goes something like this: If you like sausage, you shouldn't see how it's made. The same goes for Laws, if you believe in our country's laws you really shouldn't see how they're made because you'll lose all taste for them.

 

Mike's point about the senate not reading the patriot act isn't really a good one, this is just how the lawmaking goes. There is so much bull*** that goes on during the lawmaking process that it really makes you disgusted. It's also why Senators are rarely ever elected president, their voting records are open to everyone to view and unless you know how the game works in Washington you just think that the guy is a bad politician. For example: Lets say I am pro-choice and there is a bill that is pro-life, I may make a deal with the other side and say "I'll vote for your pro-life bill if later on you vote for my bill that is anti capital punishment". This is just the way things go in Washington and Mike's point about the senators not reading the patriot act is not a really good one because the senator was right. There really is no way to read every bill that goes through your office and it's one of the big problems our system has but it's the nature of the beast.

 

That being said, the Patriot act is a really evil piece of lawmaking, even if someone did read it there is no way to understand what it says without having a team of people to decode it. Have you ever seen it really? It is written so that you have to have every US law ever made in front of you because all it does is say things like this:

 

--- In document [insert name of law] change the word 'some' on line 40 to the word 'all' and delete the period '.' at the end of the sentance.

 

It's almost litterally a code designed so that no one reading it could ever concievably understand what was intended in the time it would take to read it and decipher it because after that was done the vote would have already been cast. It was very underhanded and should say something about the presidency. Once the bill's intention was understood (after it passed) many senators were outraged by the way it was given to them, they trusted the president to explain to them what the bill did and he misled them to thinking it was much more tame than it was. That's very bad leadership.

[Darnoc]

So let's kickass the senators and establish direct democracy of the people. OK, it won't work. So let's let the senators and representives be, but give the people more power. Every time the parliament decides something which the people don't like, the people make a referendum and tell the politicians what they really think of their stupid laws. Or they could even create their own laws, even when the politicians don't like them.

 

It works in Switzerland. I don't know, if it would work in the USA. Sadly. The USA is probably just to big for direct democracy. In Switzerland already things are sooooo slow in politics. Now just imagine the USA with direct democracy..... It would go ten years until a new law is enacted.

[Scrimshaw]

I saw the movie a few weeks ago and thought it was "okay". I like the humor in the beginning of the movie, but thought the ending got overly cheesy and obsessively sentimental. It was like all the fun and games were over and Moore displayed that woman's grief to the point of exploitation. It was basically a classic case of the Appeal to Pity Fallacy. Go here: http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/ap.htm

 

The movie was definitely a piece of propaganda, rife with numerous contradictions and fallacies, the biggest one being the Fallacy of Exclusion: Go here: http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/exclus.htm

 

Moore selectively choose to include lines of evidence (inconclusive on their own), while deliberately omitting all others that would contradict his "collage" of wacked out conspiracy theories.

 

Also, the fact that he brushed over the fact that the Dems had the same intelligence Bush had and voted for the war in Iraq, proves that his intention with the film is purely political. The whole AMERICAN GOVERNMENT went to war with Iraq, not just "Bush". Also, Clinton, among many other Dems had publically stated that Iraq had WMDs and that Saddam was a threat that needed to be neutralized. But of course, Moore convienently left out those facts. Again, more proof that it is a piece of propaganda.......The whole film is basically Ad hominem attacks and unprovable conspiracies theories aimed at a particuar family, nothing more.

[tyjet3]

Everything Scrimshaw said i agree with...

 

Those are the only reasons I hate this movie.

[Eiade]

Just go see the movie, Tyjet, and then I'll really listen to your posts.

[Scrimshaw]

One more thing.....the woman (can't remember her name) needs to understand that the military is an institution designed for WAR. When troops go to fight overseas, their is a better than zero chance that they will get killed. PEOPLE GET KILLED IN WARS. That is not a mystery. That is not some big revelation. No one forced her son to join the military. No one forced him to go to Iraq. The kid volunteered for those things, and died in combat. That is what happens sometimes when you fight in the military. (duh) It goes with the job. If you don't want to take those risks, and you don't trust your government, then DON'T JOIN THE MILITARY! Its not rocket science, and babbling and moaning and blaming Bush for it is a fallacious action.

 

Why didn't she go to the steps of the Capitol and scream her grief at all the Democrat senators and congressmen (including Kerry) who also voted to send her son to Iraq??? Hmmmm??? Oh, that's right! I forgot. This wasn't supposed to be an honest film about the facts.