Fahrenheit 9/11...

[UberBender]

I agree with Tyjet that it is wrong to lie. (one of the ten commandments)

 

I think it was wrong of Mike to lie/alter the truth in his movie. A few examples.

 

 

 

@Darnoc:

 

I will probly lose all respect on this post, everyone is going to think I'm a conservative male without a father. (which maybe i am :D )

 

 

 

This may get a little off topic.

 

Guns are a right.

I enjoy shooting.

 

I usauly shoot at paper with little rings on it but sometimes I shoot at living thing. Animals of course, and it's all legal.

 

Hunting permits and hunting tags are very expensive and do you know where that money goes?

 

Conservation! The money supports keeping our enviroment clean and preserving wildlife.

 

The fraction of tax dollars that goes into conservation is insufficiant, that is why we need hunters who are willing to spend up to $2000 (just the tag) to go shoot an animal.

 

And if we didn't shoot the animal (clean, painless death) it will starve to death or get ravaged apart by predators. (I'm sure that hurts a lot)

 

So...

 

Next time you think guns are wrong think of the animals.

take a look!

[Darnoc]

Guns are not a right. Nobody should have them and they shouldn't be produced at all. It is logical, when there are no weapons there are no wars. OK, we can argue that terrorists can build their own weapons and attack. In order to prevent them from attacking, a force big enough for defence must be maintained until all arms are acounted for and production has stopped entirely. But it should be forbidden to have a weapon for private purposes, except in special circumstances, e.g. you live in the wilderness and you need to hunt in order to survive.

 

Having a gun is not a right. This law is one of the dumbest laws in the USA and I don't know any other nation which has such a law. Certainly no nation in the EU and also not in Switzerland where I live.

 

Acctually, hunters are a great problem in Switzerland. They are a threat towards the environment, because they illegally shoot predators like wolves.

[UberBender]

Acctually, hunters are a great problem in Switzerland. They are a threat towards the environment, because they illegally shoot predators like wolves.

I don't speak for illegal hunters, or poachers as some people call them. They are criminals and give a bad name to hunters and gun owners alike.

 

The reason owning a gun should be and is a right is that a civilian population should not have to rely on cops, military, or body guards for safety.

 

"A well regulated militia being nessesary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

 

They can't always be there to protect you.

 

Your idea of "no guns" is insane. Would you ban knives, chainsaws, axes, and dynomite too? They all kill people but they also serve as tools, just as guns do.

 

 

Regardless of what your stance on gun ownership is, you should try to treat people (such as Mr. Heston) with the same respect you would expect from them. Mr. Heston never disrespected Mike in any way.

[surian]

The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not "insurgents" or "terrorists" or "The Enemy." They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win.

 

This is not saying that he supports them over our troops. You are the one who is twisting words now. He's saying (quite correctly I might add) that these people figting us right now in Iraq are NOT terrorists but they are the Iraqi people who want us OUT of their country. He's saying that they will win because they have the will to do so and we do not have the same will that they do because it's not OUR country, it's theirs. It's the same reason that we won the Revolutionary War, and why the vietnamese won in their revolutionary war. He is NOT saying that we should not support our troops, rather his point is that we should pull our troops out because they are fighting a battle in Iraq that can not be won and all that will be accomplished is many Americans dead.

 

You also say that these people are fighting for a totalitarian dictatorship rather than for democracy... well, i'll grant you that they are not fighting for democracy, but they are also NOT FIGHTING FOR TOTALITARIANISM. That's idiotic. They are fighting for their liberty from the US government. They did not ask us to be there, but we are, and while they may be grateful to us for helping oust saddam they also recognise that they are now operating under the US's form of totalitarianism. If you think we are acting like a democracy in Iraq then you need to have your head checked. We are just a little better than saddam's regime when we are occupying a country, and I'm not saying that this is becasue we are a brutal nation but rather that it is a concequence of occupying another nation through force. You end up being a totalitarian governemtn while you are there. The Iraqis are fighting AGAINST US, not FOR SADDAM, make sure you understand this because it is exactly the same as what the founding fathers were doing.

 

The founding fathers were not fighting to set up a new King (after the fact there was some talk of setitng up a king of America but the fighting wasn't about that). They were fighting the oppresive regime of England. They were fighting for the right to live their own lives as they saw fit and not to have another country telling them how to live their lives. This seems like a pretty obvious similarity to me but for some reason many people don't seem to understand that the Iraqis want exactly the same thing that we wanted in 1776... freedom.

 

Representative Kennedy (R-MN), one of the lawmakers accosted in Fahrenheit 9/11, was censored by Michael Moore...

 

You know, I won't argue with this point. I said earlier that my main problem with Michael Moore is that he ambushes people and tries to make them look like fools. His point though, when he does these things, is not to be taken litterally. He's using humor and a tounge-in-cheek attitude to draw attention to a point. However, it still gets me irritated because it doesn't do much for me and it makes him look bad to act this way.

 

To use lies and frauds to manipulate people is contrary to the very essence of democracy, which requires people to make rational decisions based on truthful information. It's wrong when a President lies. It's wrong when a talk radio host lies. And it's wrong when a film-maker lies.

 

I agree with this. It is wrong to lie... no duh... lol. However, I have not seen you actually show me something that Moore has outright lied about. You have shown that he edits out certain parts of his film that are really meaningless in the large scheme of things. The fact that Rep. Kennedy had more to say than what was shown in the movie doesn't disprove his point, which was that the poor go to war first and the rich stay at home. You tell me that this isn't generally true... I did agree with you though, I think it was underhanded but it was certainly not an outright lie.

 

If you show me that he lied about Bush's links to the Carlyle (sp?) group then I'll give you some more credit than just to say that Moore was using bad taste.

 

As for the whole gun debate that this as evovled into (god this is one hell of a thread :D):

It may surprise you, but I don't really know where I stand on this issue. This one and abortion are two of the issues I really don't know where to put my energy into. Guns are probably granted in the constitution (there are arguments that it is an outdated law though). However I don't know if I can in good faith say that cynide tipped nylon coated bullets are also granted in the constitution... it's a slippery topic. I will say this though: if we never had the 2nd ammendment in the first place I wouldn't be in favor of making a new law that allowed citizens to have guns, but as it's not the case I'm also not going to say that we should ban them now that we have them...

 

Take a note: that's about as conservitive as you'll ever see me get :D

[UberBender]

It's the same reason that we won the Revolutionary War, and why the vietnamese won in their revolutionary war.

I'm from Mississippi (thats why I'm a pro-gun, conservative male without a father!)

 

I have to point out that spirit can not win a war.

 

I sometimes refer to the Civil War as The Southern Revolution. We (The South) were oppresed and did something about it.

 

We had tons of spirit to fight (you tend to get that when someone invades your country and burns it to the ground) and lots of skill (we were mostly hunters who were very skilled with rifles).

 

Yet we (The South) did not win the war. Not because we were wrong, but because the enemy was simply stronger.

 

I think that the Iraqis have lots of spirit (as we are bombing the hell out of 'em) but I simply don't think they will win. America is a war machine. A country built for war.

 

All the gun componies play off that to make tons of money. Vietnam is a good example of having a war just so the gun componies can make money. War for war's sake.

 

Good guys don't always win. That's because there are no good guys. Every side in every war ever has done things wrong. There is no black and white. Every one is gray.

 

Some people are grayer(Hitler) than others but everyone commmits sins. It's human nature.

[surian]

Ah, but the difference is twofold.

 

1) In the civil war the south was also a part of the United States. We (the north) were still fighting for our country. In the revolutionary war we were not a part of England in the same way, rather we were a colony.

 

2) Once the civil war was over much of the inequities were adressed and the southern states were fogiven. I know that's a generalization but the point is that we made an effort to rebuild the south and to extend a hand to our brothers after the war. In Iraq we will not do the same. Also, these people have all the time in the world to keep fighting us. As long as we are there they can still fight us and eventually we will either give up and leave or we will destroy them utterly. If you ask me the former is probably more likely because even I don't think that our country (no matter who the president is) could get away with killing off every person in Iraq just to keep them from being an enemy.

[ImmortalSnafu]

I'm from Mississippi (thats why I'm a pro-gun, conservative male without a father!)

My entire extended family is from Alabama...my whole family fits that same bill.

 

I sometimes refer to the Civil War as The Southern Revolution. We (The South) were oppresed and did something about it.

The Southern states weren't really 'oppressed'...it was mainly the slaves in the Southern states who were oppressed.

 

We had tons of spirit to fight (you tend to get that when someone invades your country and burns it to the ground)

The South wasn't invaded...they were the ones who initiated the war at Fort Sumter.

 

All the gun componies play off that to make tons of money. Vietnam is a good example of having a war just so the gun componies can make money. War for war's sake.

Vietnam was a lousy war, but it wasn't fought just for the sake of fighting. The Vietnam War was part of the policy of Containment that was the official US stratagy to deal with the Communist threat. It was fought to 'contain' the Communists of North Vietnam to halt the spread of Communism. Vietnam was a battleground in the war on Communism...we lost the battle but we won the war. You'll learn about it probably in you Junior year of high school, but maybe not.

 

Good guys don't always win. That's because there are no good guys. Every side in every war ever has done things wrong. There is no black and white. Every one is gray.

Totally true.

 

Guns are not a right. Nobody should have them and they shouldn't be produced at all. It is logical, when there are no weapons there are no wars. OK, we can argue that terrorists can build their own weapons and attack. In order to prevent them from attacking, a force big enough for defence must be maintained until all arms are acounted for and production has stopped entirely.

I absolutely hate guns as well...although the elimination of all weapons will never take place.

 

These are some of what I mean (this from 59 deceits of F 9/11)

If those are the best examples you have...then that's nothing. None of those a flat-out lies, just twisting facts to prove his points. If those little 'deceits' outrage you so much, why doesn't George W.'s blatant lies anger you?

[Darnoc]

I don't speak for illegal hunters, or poachers as some people call them. They are criminals and give a bad name to hunters and gun owners alike.

 

That is because you don't live in Switzerland. A hunter in Switzerland is in most cases a poacher at the same time and not only that, the hunters think what they are doing is right and just, even when it is against the law. The problem is, no one can move against them, since they are quite good represented in the cantonal governments and a lot of hunters are guys from the local government or rich people. Hunters have a kind of their own society, it is worst in the mountain regions, where the hunters stand firm together and do not let anyone in, certainly no one to investigate their illegal actions. But everyone knows who was it when again some protected animal was shot, like an eagle or wolve. The problem is, there is no evidence and since the hunters are so well represented and hold together, you can't move against them via court.

 

 

The reason owning a gun should be and is a right is that a civilian population should not have to rely on cops, military, or body guards for safety.

 

"A well regulated militia being nessesary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

 

They can't always be there to protect you.

 

Your idea of "no guns" is insane. Would you ban knives, chainsaws, axes, and dynomite too? They all kill people but they also serve as tools, just as guns do.

 

We do have no militia in Switzerland and most people do not have personal firearms, with exception of military arms (I come to this point later), we do have more foreigners in percent and still our murderrate is lower than in the USA.

 

Why? Because we learned to deal with such things. We learned that carrying firearms only increases the danger, you simply do not use weapons (at least in most cases). When someone has a personal weapon, he is either a hunter (and there are not a lot hunters, most of them live in the mountains) or a member of a shooting club. Shooting club is a tradition in Switzerland, it is a sport. That is the major reason for possessing a gun at all, most people don't even have one. Only a few people acctually a gun to defend themselves. One reason is of course that it is very difficult to get any guns at all, you need a licence and to get this licence you have to make a test, just like a driving test when you want to get a driving licence. And I can tell you, tests in Switzerland are not as easy as in the USA (I can tell, since I lived for 2 years in the USA myself).

 

Now, concerning military arms. Every Swiss citizen has to join the army and go through recruit school (of course, when your invalid, you can't). There you receive a gun and learn to use it, it is your duty to practice with it a certain amount in the year and to keep it in order, because you have to return it to the military when your time of serving is up (in most cases when you are 30). But you don't use this gun, mostly it justs stands around and you show it to visitors. Perhaps it is hanging on the wall or it is in the atic, but you don't use it. The last case when a military weapon was used for a crime was in 2001 at the massacre of Zug.

 

As you can see, it is possible to have a society without arms in use and still not having a security problem. I cannot understand what kind of problem with security you have over there in the USA. Perhaps you have a problem with crime, because you are so afraid of it. Everyone carries a gun, because he is afraid. Don't be surprised when your crime rate is higher than ours. People who are afraid and don't know who to deal with such things are more likely to use their weapon.

[tyjet3]

Everything you just said is one of the weakest things I have every heard. You obviously don't know what kind of world we live in. The world is not dangerous because people have guns, the world dangerous because we have dangerous people.

 

You tell me, what would you do if a large group of people (lets call them terrorist) came in to your house and tried to kill your family... you managed to get away to a closet. You have no way to defend yourself because a law recently passed made you remove your gun from the very closet you are in... how ironic... Want that to happen?

 

America is hated so much that we need defense. Yes, Canada leaves their door opens at night... well tell me this, when was the last time you heard someone say "I hate Canada"... I'll tell you, never.

 

The world is not full of peace so don't try and pretend it is. There will always be someone who hates you because people hate people for reasons (American, christian, racist, ect.). You take away defense, and you might as well go to a middle eastern country holding a sign that says "I hate Muslims"...

 

----------------------------------

Back on topic...

 

None of those a flat-out lies, just twisting facts to prove his points.

 

Thanks for proving my point...

[Zmid]

Just out of curiousity, the '59 deceits' that are being referred to, they wouldn't be the ones on this page, by any chance? If so, have you also read Michael Moore's Notes and Sources page for Farenheit 9/11? If you read that, there is just as much evidence to back up Mike Moore's claims, if not more, as there is in the 59 Deceits page.

 

As one example, in the very first alleged deceit, the link Dave Kopel (author of the 59 Deceits page) gives to 'prove' the first network to call for Bush in Florida was not Fox only mentions that Fox first called Florida for Gore, then retracted this.

 

Conversely, Michael Moore totally agrees with the link provided by Kopel. He says that all the networks (Fox included) called for Gore, then Fox was the first network to retract this at 2:16am. This is even backed up by other evidence provided by Kopel.

 

 

If you read all the evidence provided by both parties, personally, I come down on Moore's side, and I haven't even seen Farenheit 9/11.