Re: [OT] Fahrenheit 9/11

Spete wrote:
> While we're talking about movies: go see it. It doesn't change
> anything about Dubya, but it definately gives you more insight. It's
> more rotten than I perceived....

What is more rotten? The film? Your teeth?

Spete wrote:
> "dwb" <parc_erom@crossdata.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:2krgdkF5l5ogU1@uni-berlin.de...
>> Spete wrote:
>>> While we're talking about movies: go see it. It doesn't change
>>> anything about Dubya, but it definately gives you more insight. It's
>>> more rotten than I perceived....
>>
>> What is more rotten? The film? Your teeth?
>>
>
> Oh.....my.....god....that was so....like....funny

It wasn't supposed to be - it was a questioning of your statement.

Why do you think what the movie portrays is the truth? Why do you not think
it's just another form
of manipulation?

Serious question.

Spete wrote:
>
> I think Michael Moore made the film/documentary to provoke thought and in my
> case it worked.
>
Michael Moore made the film/documentary to try and ensure that Bush loses
the next election. Even he admits that much.

_If_ he managed to tell the truth or provoke thought, that was merely
incidental to the main goal.

--
ogden, b12 (with funky yellow luggage)

ogden <ogden@pre.org> wrote in message <40E89607.B5E1EF0F@pre.org>:

>Spete wrote:
>>
>> I think Michael Moore made the film/documentary to provoke thought and in my
>> case it worked.
>>
>Michael Moore made the film/documentary to try and ensure that Bush loses
>the next election. Even he admits that much.
>
>_If_ he managed to tell the truth or provoke thought, that was merely
>incidental to the main goal.

If you read his previous books it's clear he was doing everything he
could to stop Bush winning; to the extent of trying to persuade Nader to
stand down to stop the "anti" vote being split. It didn't work then and
it won't work now. I think there's a real possibility that the split
opposition vote won't be powerful enough to keep Bush out.
--
Got myself a one way ticket, going the wrong way

Spete <cloggyspete@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "dwb" <parc_erom@crossdata.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:2krhatF5cu23U1@uni-berlin.de...
> > Spete wrote:
> > > "dwb" <parc_erom@crossdata.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > news:2krgdkF5l5ogU1@uni-berlin.de...
> > >> Spete wrote:

> > >>> While we're talking about movies: go see it. It doesn't change
> > >>> anything about Dubya, but it definately gives you more insight. It's
> > >>> more rotten than I perceived....

> > >> What is more rotten? The film? Your teeth?

> > > Oh.....my.....god....that was so....like....funny

> > It wasn't supposed to be - it was a questioning of your statement.
> >
> > Why do you think what the movie portrays is the truth? Why do you not
> think
> > it's just another form
> > of manipulation?
> >
> > Serious question.

> I'm not taking it at face value, it just throws a whole new perspective on
> the whole case, I hadn't seen before. Maybe due to censorship or maybe due
> to the fact that we are not getting all the news coverage that the Americans
> get.

Another myth (encouraged by the Americans) is that they have a free press.
Of course, their I Amendment forbids any 'censorship', but only through
the law. As most of the media are owned by multimilionnaires (thus, by
definition, Conservatives), it's very difficult to get the 'real picture'
in the United States. Witness the fact that over half of them think that
Saddam Hussein was responsible for '9/11' (sic). Witness the utter lack
of challenge to the 'Patriot Act', a neo-fascist bunch of laws which came
perilously close to sweeping away the Bill of Rights.

> Also: there was in my eyes some sort of manipulation going on. The
> soldiers perspective wasn't really highlighted, or at least not enough, but
> all the strings that go from the Bush family through the Saudis to end up at
> the Bin-Ladens was worrying.

There is always manipulation, as by definition there is no other way to
control the 'other superpower', as Chomsky calls it: the people. You can
use force only against small groups.

--
genuine_froggie@zeouane.org

ogden <ogden@pre.org> wrote:
> Spete wrote:

> > I think Michael Moore made the film/documentary to provoke thought and in my
> > case it worked.

> Michael Moore made the film/documentary to try and ensure that Bush loses
> the next election. Even he admits that much.

It would have been nice if Bush had won an election to begin with.

--
genuine_froggie@zeouane.org

ogden wrote:

> > I think Michael Moore made the film/documentary to provoke thought
> > and in my case it worked.
> >
> Michael Moore made the film/documentary to try and ensure that Bush
> loses the next election. Even he admits that much.

There's a real danger that the film may have an opposite effect. Bizarre
in a way only the US can manage.

--
Simon

Brighton | MYSOB: http://www.sweller.co.uk/sob/
England | MZSOB: http://www.mztech.fsnet.co.uk/

sweller <ng@mztech.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> ogden wrote:

> > > I think Michael Moore made the film/documentary to provoke thought
> > > and in my case it worked.

> > Michael Moore made the film/documentary to try and ensure that Bush
> > loses the next election. Even he admits that much.

> There's a real danger that the film may have an opposite effect. Bizarre
> in a way only the US can manage.

Not really bizarre; at least not in an 'American context'. The people
who voted for Bush, in full knowledge of his horrendous record in Texas,
are too stupid to have the vote. Bush could go on national television,
admit to knowing that there were no 'weapons of mass destruction' in Iraq,
admit to lying, admit to wishing the death of innocent Iraqis ... in short,
he could admit to almost any unlawful act for which federal law has a
statute ... and the above folk would still vote for him.

They're _thick_. Full stop.

--
genuine_froggie@zeouane.org

dwb <parc_erom@crossdata.co.uk> wrote the following literary
masterpiece:
>Why do you think what the movie portrays is the truth?

Because there's not actually anything new in it? It simply portrays the
known facts visually, which is the only way most people seem to be able
to accept any sort of information these days

--
Veggie Dave
UKRMHRC#2 BOTAFOF#08
IQ 18 FILMS http://www.iq18films.com
Extreme Racing http://www.veggie-dave.co.uk
Toxic Shock Syndrome Gets More Girls Than Me

On Mon, 5 Jul 2004 14:07:28 +0100, Veggie Dave <Veggie~Dave@127.0.0.1>
wrote:

>dwb <parc_erom@crossdata.co.uk> wrote the following literary
>masterpiece:
>>Why do you think what the movie portrays is the truth?
>
>Because there's not actually anything new in it? It simply portrays the
>known facts visually, which is the only way most people seem to be able
>to accept any sort of information these days

I think Moore's point is not so much the presentation of the facts
visually, but the presentation of them at all. He seems to be trying
(amongst other things) to balance out the likes of Fox News.
--
GSXR1000 DIAABTCOD#11 BOTAFOT#75
"We take these risks, not to escape from life,
but to prevent life escaping from us."
http://www.bensales.com

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 09:00:59 GMT, <genuine_froggie@zeouane.org>
wrote:
snip>
>
>Not really bizarre; at least not in an 'American context'. The people
>who voted for Bush, in full knowledge of his horrendous record in Texas,
>are too stupid to have the vote. Bush could go on national television,
>admit to knowing that there were no 'weapons of mass destruction' in Iraq,
>admit to lying, admit to wishing the death of innocent Iraqis ... in short,
>he could admit to almost any unlawful act for which federal law has a
>statute ... and the above folk would still vote for him.
>
>They're _thick_. Full stop.

How can anyone be "too stupid to have the vote"? That's almost as
bigoted a statement as saying they're too black or too disabled to
have a vote.
--
Andy Bonwick
ZX9RE1
BOTAFOT#22,BONY#22,MRO#22,IBW#12,UKRMFBC#6,chi#2,U KRMRM#4
BOB#7,BOTAFOF#4398723498723.3,Mirtth#30,FTB#2

Andy Bonwick wrote:
>
> How can anyone be "too stupid to have the vote"? That's almost as
> bigoted a statement as saying they're too black or too disabled to
> have a vote.

Too Jewish, otoh...

--
ogden, b12 (with funky yellow luggage)

Andy Bonwick <a.bonwick@btopenworld.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 09:00:59 GMT, <genuine_froggie@zeouane.org>
> wrote:

> >Not really bizarre; at least not in an 'American context'. The people
> >who voted for Bush, in full knowledge of his horrendous record in Texas,
> >are too stupid to have the vote. Bush could go on national television,
> >admit to knowing that there were no 'weapons of mass destruction' in Iraq,
> >admit to lying, admit to wishing the death of innocent Iraqis ... in short,
> >he could admit to almost any unlawful act for which federal law has a
> >statute ... and the above folk would still vote for him.

> >They're _thick_. Full stop.

> How can anyone be "too stupid to have the vote"? That's almost as
> bigoted a statement as saying they're too black or too disabled to
> have a vote.

No, because 'black' or 'disabled' cannot have an effect on your ability
to reason, and to arrive at a decision based on different criteria. Stupid,
by definition, does.

I'm all for 'lowering' the threshold at which simple stupidity is classed
as mental retardation. If such a measure were to be coupled with a minimum
IQ to be allowed to vote, we'd probably ensure that the Tories wouldn't
see the inside of No 10 for the next five centuries.

--
genuine_froggie@zeouane.org

spoke:
> I'm all for 'lowering' the threshold at which simple stupidity is classed
> as mental retardation. If such a measure were to be coupled with a minimum
> IQ to be allowed to vote, we'd probably ensure that the Tories wouldn't
> see the inside of No 10 for the next five centuries.

What's this *we* business - I thought you were French?

--
Rob_P
UKRM(at)indqualtec.co.uk
uppercase(d) BBIWYMC#1 BOG#11? MRO#31 IBCDBBB#1(kotl)
FJ1200, CCM130
Just call me Charlie Brown

Rope <spam@ukrm.net> wrote:
> spoke:

> > I'm all for 'lowering' the threshold at which simple stupidity is classed
> > as mental retardation. If such a measure were to be coupled with a minimum
> > IQ to be allowed to vote, we'd probably ensure that the Tories wouldn't
> > see the inside of No 10 for the next five centuries.

> What's this *we* business - I thought you were French?

I speak as a citizen of the planet Earth.

--
genuine_froggie@zeouane.org

<genuine_froggie@zeouane.org> wrote:

> > What's this we business - I thought you were French?
>
> I speak as a citizen of the planet Earth.

Good recovery.

--
Simon

Brighton | MYSOB: http://www.sweller.co.uk/sob/
England | MZSOB: http://www.mztech.fsnet.co.uk/

Des says...
> Rope <spam@ukrm.net> wrote:

> > What's this *we* business - I thought you were French?
>
> I speak as a citizen of the planet Earth.

To be classed as a citizen of the planet Earth you must first prove
yourself to be human. You claim to be French and are therefore excluded.

--
Lozzo: The SpeedySpic
Yamaha YZF1000R Thunderace
"Mummy's little angel, little sister's pimp"

	#1
dwb	Re: [OT] Fahrenheit 9/11 Spete wrote: > While we're talking about movies: go see it. It doesn't change > anything about Dubya, but it definately gives you more insight. It's > more rotten than I perceived.... What is more rotten? The film? Your teeth?

	#3
ogden	Re: [OT] Fahrenheit 9/11 Spete wrote: > > I think Michael Moore made the film/documentary to provoke thought and in my > case it worked. > Michael Moore made the film/documentary to try and ensure that Bush loses the next election. Even he admits that much. _If_ he managed to tell the truth or provoke thought, that was merely incidental to the main goal. -- ogden, b12 (with funky yellow luggage)

	#4
deadmail@burnt.org.uk	Re: [OT] Fahrenheit 9/11 ogden <ogden@pre.org> wrote in message <40E89607.B5E1EF0F@pre.org>: >Spete wrote: >> >> I think Michael Moore made the film/documentary to provoke thought and in my >> case it worked. >> >Michael Moore made the film/documentary to try and ensure that Bush loses >the next election. Even he admits that much. > >_If_ he managed to tell the truth or provoke thought, that was merely >incidental to the main goal. If you read his previous books it's clear he was doing everything he could to stop Bush winning; to the extent of trying to persuade Nader to stand down to stop the "anti" vote being split. It didn't work then and it won't work now. I think there's a real possibility that the split opposition vote won't be powerful enough to keep Bush out. -- Got myself a one way ticket, going the wrong way

	#5
	Re: [OT] Fahrenheit 9/11 Spete <cloggyspete@hotmail.com> wrote: > "dwb" <parc_erom@crossdata.co.uk> wrote in message > news:2krhatF5cu23U1@uni-berlin.de... > > Spete wrote: > > > "dwb" <parc_erom@crossdata.co.uk> wrote in message > > > news:2krgdkF5l5ogU1@uni-berlin.de... > > >> Spete wrote: > > >>> While we're talking about movies: go see it. It doesn't change > > >>> anything about Dubya, but it definately gives you more insight. It's > > >>> more rotten than I perceived.... > > >> What is more rotten? The film? Your teeth? > > > Oh.....my.....god....that was so....like....funny > > It wasn't supposed to be - it was a questioning of your statement. > > > > Why do you think what the movie portrays is the truth? Why do you not > think > > it's just another form > > of manipulation? > > > > Serious question. > I'm not taking it at face value, it just throws a whole new perspective on > the whole case, I hadn't seen before. Maybe due to censorship or maybe due > to the fact that we are not getting all the news coverage that the Americans > get. Another myth (encouraged by the Americans) is that they have a free press. Of course, their I Amendment forbids any 'censorship', but only through the law. As most of the media are owned by multimilionnaires (thus, by definition, Conservatives), it's very difficult to get the 'real picture' in the United States. Witness the fact that over half of them think that Saddam Hussein was responsible for '9/11' (sic). Witness the utter lack of challenge to the 'Patriot Act', a neo-fascist bunch of laws which came perilously close to sweeping away the Bill of Rights. > Also: there was in my eyes some sort of manipulation going on. The > soldiers perspective wasn't really highlighted, or at least not enough, but > all the strings that go from the Bush family through the Saudis to end up at > the Bin-Ladens was worrying. There is always manipulation, as by definition there is no other way to control the 'other superpower', as Chomsky calls it: the people. You can use force only against small groups. -- genuine_froggie@zeouane.org

	#7
sweller	Re: [OT] Fahrenheit 9/11 ogden wrote: > > I think Michael Moore made the film/documentary to provoke thought > > and in my case it worked. > > > Michael Moore made the film/documentary to try and ensure that Bush > loses the next election. Even he admits that much. There's a real danger that the film may have an opposite effect. Bizarre in a way only the US can manage. -- Simon Brighton \| MYSOB: http://www.sweller.co.uk/sob/ England \| MZSOB: http://www.mztech.fsnet.co.uk/

	#8
	Re: [OT] Fahrenheit 9/11 sweller <ng@mztech.fsnet.co.uk> wrote: > ogden wrote: > > > I think Michael Moore made the film/documentary to provoke thought > > > and in my case it worked. > > Michael Moore made the film/documentary to try and ensure that Bush > > loses the next election. Even he admits that much. > There's a real danger that the film may have an opposite effect. Bizarre > in a way only the US can manage. Not really bizarre; at least not in an 'American context'. The people who voted for Bush, in full knowledge of his horrendous record in Texas, are too stupid to have the vote. Bush could go on national television, admit to knowing that there were no 'weapons of mass destruction' in Iraq, admit to lying, admit to wishing the death of innocent Iraqis ... in short, he could admit to almost any unlawful act for which federal law has a statute ... and the above folk would still vote for him. They're _thick_. Full stop. -- genuine_froggie@zeouane.org

	#9
Veggie Dave	Re: [OT] Fahrenheit 9/11 dwb <parc_erom@crossdata.co.uk> wrote the following literary masterpiece: >Why do you think what the movie portrays is the truth? Because there's not actually anything new in it? It simply portrays the known facts visually, which is the only way most people seem to be able to accept any sort of information these days -- Veggie Dave UKRMHRC#2 BOTAFOF#08 IQ 18 FILMS http://www.iq18films.com Extreme Racing http://www.veggie-dave.co.uk Toxic Shock Syndrome Gets More Girls Than Me

	#10
Ben	Re: [OT] Fahrenheit 9/11 On Mon, 5 Jul 2004 14:07:28 +0100, Veggie Dave <Veggie~Dave@127.0.0.1> wrote: >dwb <parc_erom@crossdata.co.uk> wrote the following literary >masterpiece: >>Why do you think what the movie portrays is the truth? > >Because there's not actually anything new in it? It simply portrays the >known facts visually, which is the only way most people seem to be able >to accept any sort of information these days I think Moore's point is not so much the presentation of the facts visually, but the presentation of them at all. He seems to be trying (amongst other things) to balance out the likes of Fox News. -- GSXR1000 DIAABTCOD#11 BOTAFOT#75 "We take these risks, not to escape from life, but to prevent life escaping from us." http://www.bensales.com

	#11
Andy Bonwick	Re: [OT] Fahrenheit 9/11 On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 09:00:59 GMT, <genuine_froggie@zeouane.org> wrote: snip> > >Not really bizarre; at least not in an 'American context'. The people >who voted for Bush, in full knowledge of his horrendous record in Texas, >are too stupid to have the vote. Bush could go on national television, >admit to knowing that there were no 'weapons of mass destruction' in Iraq, >admit to lying, admit to wishing the death of innocent Iraqis ... in short, >he could admit to almost any unlawful act for which federal law has a >statute ... and the above folk would still vote for him. > >They're _thick_. Full stop. How can anyone be "too stupid to have the vote"? That's almost as bigoted a statement as saying they're too black or too disabled to have a vote. -- Andy Bonwick ZX9RE1 BOTAFOT#22,BONY#22,MRO#22,IBW#12,UKRMFBC#6,chi#2,U KRMRM#4 BOB#7,BOTAFOF#4398723498723.3,Mirtth#30,FTB#2

	#12
ogden	Re: [OT] Fahrenheit 9/11 Andy Bonwick wrote: > > How can anyone be "too stupid to have the vote"? That's almost as > bigoted a statement as saying they're too black or too disabled to > have a vote. Too Jewish, otoh... -- ogden, b12 (with funky yellow luggage)

	#14
Rope	Re: [OT] Fahrenheit 9/11 spoke: > I'm all for 'lowering' the threshold at which simple stupidity is classed > as mental retardation. If such a measure were to be coupled with a minimum > IQ to be allowed to vote, we'd probably ensure that the Tories wouldn't > see the inside of No 10 for the next five centuries. What's this we business - I thought you were French? -- Rob_P UKRM(at)indqualtec.co.uk uppercase(d) BBIWYMC#1 BOG#11? MRO#31 IBCDBBB#1(kotl) FJ1200, CCM130 Just call me Charlie Brown

	#15
	Re: [OT] Fahrenheit 9/11 Rope <spam@ukrm.net> wrote: > spoke: > > I'm all for 'lowering' the threshold at which simple stupidity is classed > > as mental retardation. If such a measure were to be coupled with a minimum > > IQ to be allowed to vote, we'd probably ensure that the Tories wouldn't > > see the inside of No 10 for the next five centuries. > What's this we business - I thought you were French? I speak as a citizen of the planet Earth. -- genuine_froggie@zeouane.org

	#16
sweller	Re: [OT] Fahrenheit 9/11 <genuine_froggie@zeouane.org> wrote: > > What's this we business - I thought you were French? > > I speak as a citizen of the planet Earth. Good recovery. -- Simon Brighton \| MYSOB: http://www.sweller.co.uk/sob/ England \| MZSOB: http://www.mztech.fsnet.co.uk/

	#17
Lozzo	Re: [OT] Fahrenheit 9/11 Des says... > Rope <spam@ukrm.net> wrote: > > What's this we business - I thought you were French? > > I speak as a citizen of the planet Earth. To be classed as a citizen of the planet Earth you must first prove yourself to be human. You claim to be French and are therefore excluded. -- Lozzo: The SpeedySpic Yamaha YZF1000R Thunderace "Mummy's little angel, little sister's pimp"