CDIH

so download it like I did, i'm sure moore would be proud since it would be sticking it to big business and hollywood by not paying outrageous prices for their movie tickets and overpriced concession stands.

(screen.width/2)){this.width = (this.width/2)}" onclick="javascript:if(this.width > (screen.width/2)){this.width = (this.width/2)} else {this.width = (this.width*2)}" border="0" alt='Posted image: Click to resize'>

I downloaded it from Moorewatch.com.

I just don't think the movie was that good. Columbine was more funny and interesting. This whole movie was based on a very thin and questionable premise of Bush and the Bin Ladens being in cahoots.

i agree. columbine was more well done and was more entertaining. there really is no new information in the movie, its a rehash. i think, however, that a majority of the country does not stay on top of the news and this information is actually new to them. the carlyle connection, the vacations, the poor fighting the rich white mans war, etc...

He never implicates Bush in anything besides all the factual stuff like him being on vacation 42% of the time his first year in office. He just puts stuff out there to make you think, to form your own conclusion. Here's the info, now make your own conclusion. He hired people to go over the film with a fine tooth comb to make sure his facts were indeed correct and theres pretty much nothing in the film thats untrue as far as statistics and stuff.

That was the problem with the documentary in my view. Columbine had an argument. It had a point, a conlcusion, and a coherrent argument. I disagreed with it in his "a causes b" point of view, but fine. At least it was consistent point.

This last one was just all over the place, not really saying that Bush knew about it, let it happen, didn't go after those responsible, but he implied it with some of his research.

There was no point, no argument. It was weird.

His argument that the country was pumped full of fear made a lot of sense to me. It reminded me of the Marilyn Manson interview he did in Columbine, when manson said how the news and commercials try to program your way of thought. The people were made to fear a threat that wasn't not there but was always really there but they played it to a zenith. Then boom lets go invade iraq.... ok!!!!

I myself fell for the fuckin trap, I am no better than anyone else. I was watching the news pretty much daily after 9/11 for hours a day being pumped full of the saddam/iraq/afghanistan/bin laden connection and how we needed to invade now or else the apocalypse was on the way and I defended the need to go to war to everyone.

I realized the insanity way before the moore documentary but many people didnt and still dont.

That's oen thing that I definitely agree with. The "we have credible evidence that a significant threat is posed on xxx date". We of course won't tell you how, exactly where, or exactly when but it's a BIG threat.

I can definitely see this as an administration ploy trying to get people to afraid of more pending terrorist threats to vote him out of office

Galt Wrote:That was the problem with the documentary in my view. Columbine had an argument. It had a point, a conlcusion, and a coherrent argument. I disagreed with it in his "a causes b" point of view, but fine. At least it was consistent point.

This last one was just all over the place, not really saying that Bush knew about it, let it happen, didn't go after those responsible, but he implied it with some of his research.

There was no point, no argument. It was weird.

it's been a few weeks since i saw it, but i think i got the point, but then i was already predisposed to agree with most of what he's saying. but anyway, i think the point is that if you see this you might at least start to question things and maybe look into it for yourself, and i think that was the purpose of it all. yeah he's become the rich fatcat that he's suposedly against, but he's still important to this society because he raises the questions that people are too lazy to ask.

what i love the most is the people who write into the papers without having seen the movie and start spewing shit comparing him to goebbels and calling him a traitor. that's fantastic

>>the people who piss me off the most are the people on news shows that just vomit out the same talking points verbatim that has been sent to all their right wing sycopants.

You've got to be shittin' me.
Do you actually watch the news shows you're talking about? If you do, you can't possibly ignore that the majority of the "talking points" are coming from the left. Listen to any Kerry/Dem/Clinton defender, and they are all saying the same crap.
I'm not saying the right doesn't have repetition from its defenders, but please, let's not pretend that the Dems aren't doing the exact same thing. (And in my opinion, much more so...)

>>He hired people to go over the film with a fine tooth comb to make sure his facts were indeed correct and theres pretty much nothing in the film thats untrue as far as statistics and stuff.

Except that's one of the big lies of the film, and you've bought into it!
There's plenty of stuff in F-9/11 that is outright false (lies?) and can be disproved with a cursory search.
Just one example: Moore claims that the Bin Laden family and other Saudis left the US on 9/13 while all other traffic was grounded and that none were interviewed by the FBI. WRONG!!
They did not leave until AFTER air traffic had resumed on 9/14, and most of them WERE cleared by the FBI!
Not to mention, he had on film, and left on the cutting room floor, footage of Richard Clarke (who spends most of the film as folk-hero) explaining how he approved those flights.
Boom. At least 3-4 examples of outright fabrications dealing with one small segment of the movie!

There's plenty more, so please, let's not pretend that F-9/11 is some bastion of honest journalism. It's intellectually dishonest, and weakens all your other arguments.

there are talking points on both sides. i just happen to see it far more often on the left. i listen to rush, hannity, o'reilly, o'franken, randy rhodes, stern, laura ingraham, mark lavin, and monica crowley so i'd say i get a pretty good spectrum of both left and right wing babble.

sir o: Greatest political poster of all time

i concur

Jon Stewart > Sir O

I concur

Quote:Just one example: Moore claims that the Bin Laden family and other Saudis left the US on 9/13 while all other traffic was grounded and that none were interviewed by the FBI. WRONG!!
They did not leave until AFTER air traffic had resumed on 9/14, and most of them WERE cleared by the FBI!

The FBI has repeatedly stated that they never got to interview them, wanna site a source to back up your statement?

Wookie has it wrong, as does Gonzo.

The movie doesn't give a date when the Saudis/Bin Ladens were let out of the country. It doesn't say specificially that they were let out of the country when the rest of the flights were shut down. The movie says that "just days after...". It may have implied that the flights were given clearance when all the others were shut down, but that's not what was said.

And the FBI did speak with the people. Albeit briefly, they did. They gave a short exit interview to those they let leave.

An exit interview doesn't qualify as questioning in an incident of this scale.

what did they ask them? did you pack your owns bags?