F911 Additional Features

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by sjwalter@Oct 19 2004, 01:30 AM
Clinton responded with a missile attack, that has been reported to have struck a hospital instead of the terror camps.# If he would have really acted like you said he could have wiped out the terrorists before they became more powerful.# And why does Moore the crucify Bush if he didn't crucify Clinton who you said responded, when Bush obviously responded well.# And ground troops would have been a lot better for Clinton to send in and get the job done right.# Thats all IMO as well.

It didn't strike a hospital "instead" of a terrorist camp. Clinton nailed the camp as well, and hit an aspirin plant. Some people still maintain that there was more than aspirin being made at that factory, but who knows. A lot of countries build weapons and arms at ordinary factories as a way to disguise them.

One other thing you have to realize is that before 9/11, it would have been nearly impossible for Clinton to get support to invade Afghanistan. BTW, I was 100% behind Bush's decision to invade Aghanistan, so it's not like I wanted him to do "nothing" like (according to you) the Russians do (which couldn't be further from the truth if you knew anything about the Chechen conflict - the Russian army has been nothing short of brutal).

[kipperfan]

Originally posted by sjwalter@Oct 19 2004, 01:30 AM
I'll stand by not watching the film, i think its too bias and like i was taught when writing a good essay, always show both sides of the issue, i don't think Moore did that.

1.You havent watched the film, and YOU are calling IT to biased. So from what youve HEARD about the film youve created an oppinion, stand by it, and now wont watch the movie. Theres some definate irony here.

2.Even if the film is biased(which it is) it doesnt mean you can avoid or discount the solid and supported points that Moore made in the show. Granted some of his claims stretched the facts, and didnt show the whole truth, but at least half the film's material was 100% valid, agree with it or not.

3.How can you say if Moore did or did not do something in 911 if you didnt see the film in question?

In Conclusion: The movie is biased, but your are more biased, by not even giving this show a chance, and then denouncing it as biased, is irronoeus and disgusting on your part. You are Bill O'Rielly.

Your ONLY oppinion on this movie can be : No comment, because you got nothing to comment on. And dont even post a response until youve watched the movie, I wont discuss this with you, its discussing quantum physics with a 4 year old.

[sjwalter]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction+Oct 18 2004, 06:41 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FlamesAddiction @ Oct 18 2004, 06:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-sjwalter@Oct 19 2004, 01:30 AM
Clinton responded with a missile attack, that has been reported to have struck a hospital instead of the terror camps.# If he would have really acted like you said he could have wiped out the terrorists before they became more powerful.# And why does Moore the crucify Bush if he didn't crucify Clinton who you said responded, when Bush obviously responded well.# And ground troops would have been a lot better for Clinton to send in and get the job done right.# Thats all IMO as well.

It didn't strike a hospital "instead" of a terrorist camp. Clinton nailed the camp as well, and hit an aspirin plant. Some people still maintain that there was more than aspirin being made at that factory, but who knows. A lot of countries build weapons and arms at ordinary factories as a way to disguise them.

One other thing you have to realize is that before 9/11, it would have been nearly impossible for Clinton to get support to invade Afghanistan. BTW, I was 100% behind Bush's decision to invade Aghanistan, so it's not like I wanted him to do "nothing" like (according to you) the Russians do (which couldn't be further from the truth if you knew anything about the Chechen conflict - the Russian army has been nothing short of brutal). [/b][/quote]
Clinton needs a permission slip to invade Afghnastan (sp?) because Bush didn't need too. Or did he ask the UN first? We all know the UN is corrupt.

I'm sure if Clinton had really pressed the issue he could have invaded Afganastan. (sp?)

[sjwalter]

Originally posted by kipperfan+Oct 18 2004, 06:47 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (kipperfan @ Oct 18 2004, 06:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-sjwalter@Oct 19 2004, 01:30 AM
I'll stand by not watching the film, i think its too bias and like i was taught when writing a good essay, always show both sides of the issue, i don't think Moore did that.

1.You havent watched the film, and YOU are calling IT to biased. So from what youve HEARD about the film youve created an oppinion, stand by it, and now wont watch the movie. Theres some definate irony here.

2.Even if the film is biased(which it is) it doesnt mean you can avoid or discount the solid and supported points that Moore made in the show. Granted some of his claims stretched the facts, and didnt show the whole truth, but at least half the film's material was 100% valid, agree with it or not.

3.How can you say if Moore did or did not do something in 911 if you didnt see the film in question?

In Conclusion: The movie is biased, but your are more biased, by not even giving this show a chance, and then denouncing it as biased, is irronoeus and disgusting on your part. You are Bill O'Rielly.

Your ONLY oppinion on this movie can be : No comment, because you got nothing to comment on. And dont even post a response until youve watched the movie, I wont discuss this with you, its discussing quantum physics with a 4 year old. [/b][/quote]
I've read enough reviews to know that the film is bias. I don't need to watch it too know that it is.

Read the review i posted, thats why i won't watch it.

[kipperfan]

Originally posted by sjwalter+Oct 19 2004, 01:51 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (sjwalter @ Oct 19 2004, 01:51 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

It didn't strike a hospital "instead" of a terrorist camp. Clinton nailed the camp as well, and hit an aspirin plant. Some people still maintain that there was more than aspirin being made at that factory, but who knows. A lot of countries build weapons and arms at ordinary factories as a way to disguise them.

One other thing you have to realize is that before 9/11, it would have been nearly impossible for Clinton to get support to invade Afghanistan. BTW, I was 100% behind Bush's decision to invade Aghanistan, so it's not like I wanted him to do "nothing" like (according to you) the Russians do (which couldn't be further from the truth if you knew anything about the Chechen conflict - the Russian army has been nothing short of brutal).

Clinton needs a permission slip to invade Afghnastan (sp?) because Bush didn't need too. Or did he ask the UN first? We all know the UN is corrupt.

I'm sure if Clinton had really pressed the issue he could have invaded Afganastan. (sp?) [/b][/quote]
Bill Clinton and Democrats in general have this funny tendency of wanting world support, and international backing before they invade other soveriegn nations. Funny idea hey??

[sjwalter]

And wanting world support will never clean up terrorism. The whole world didn't want the US to invade Iraq. Terrorism will have to come to their doors first before they decide to combat it, just like it happened to the US.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

I probably explained this wrong, so i'll make it right. My teacher said that Moore is an obvious Left Wing Democrat, and unless he has a Right Wing movie with the same theories as Moore has he won't show the movie. Just like he won't let the Liberals come to our class and enforce their policies upon some kids where most don't know better then agree, he wants them to have all the party candidates come and we could then have a debate. Imagine a debate where only Kerry would answer questions, obviously then no one can get Bush's point of view, and i'm sure you agree with me here, its only right to see both sides of the issue before we decide what to believe. Showing 9/11 doesn't show both sides of the issue.

Well, I think your teacher is a bad teacher. I'm surprised he'll show anything in class with that attitude. The proper approach would have been to show the film, then challenge the students to prove or disprove the basis for the film. This would have allowed the students to do their own research and then present what they believe to be the facts. Not showing it is a dis-service and the loss of a great opportunity to expand the minds of kids and to have them do some quality research.

Thats one of the basis for their campaign election, 9/11 and what Bush has done since and all that. I don't think Moore will dissapear until he is publicly called out, and thats what Micheal Moore hates America is doing. I diagree with everything the Republicans have done is terriable, but i know where you're coming from, but i think any Democrat would have lead the country the same way after the attacks.

Okay, what have the Republicans done that has been good? Going into Afghanistan was the right thing to do. Unfortunately they went in there with insufficient resources to get the job done. Iraq? Well that's been a complete disaster. The economy? That hasn't been very good. Job creation? Bush has created jobs of late, but has created an under-employment issue along with those jobs. Medicare? Its the worst its ever been. Has he united the country? Nope, its more divided now than at any time since the civil war. What has the Bush Administration done that is good?

You also have to understand the Republicans are running a campaign of fear. They cannot fall back on anything else but 911 and a potential terrorist threat. This is the only place where Bush continually has an edge over Kerry and they are using that to their advantage.

I don't agree with opinion, but rather with the statement that "the movie 9/11 is what is helping the keep the election so close." Take that any way you want but i don't think Kerry is wise enough to win the campaign without things like this movie and others media happenings to help him. His record IMO damages his chances to much.

I certainly do not understand your logic here. George Bush got schooled at the debates. He was completely out of his element and it showed. Bush had no command over any of the issues and looked stupid on many occassions. If the Bush administration did not have 911 to fall back on, this would not be a race. The issues are something that Bush just cannot rely upon to run on. His best (No Child Left Behind) has been a failure as there has been no fiscal backing of the initiative. The deficit is enough to lose Bush the election, but he has an ace in the hole (fear) and has been using that effectively. Please tell me which "issues" Bush has been strong on because he has been murdered on that down here.

Clinton responded with a missile attack, that has been reported to have struck a hospital instead of the terror camps. If he would have really acted like you said he could have wiped out the terrorists before they became more powerful. And why does Moore the crucify Bush if he didn't crucify Clinton who you said responded, when Bush obviously responded well. And ground troops would have been a lot better for Clinton to send in and get the job done right. Thats all IMO as well.

Clinton his a hospital? When did that happen? Do you have a link for that because I have never heard of that.

The primary reason that Moore is all over Bush is because he did nothing. He was told of the threat and did nothing. Bush's refusal to do anything, because he hopefully did not believe the threat, is close to being criminal. That is why Moore is all over Bush.

He stretched the truth to far IMO so he can be called a lier. And also considering that his sources have been sometimes also called lies, i'll stand by my opinion that he's a lier. And i don't know about the Honesty issue, to me it seems like honesty doesn't matter as long as he gets his point across.

Where did he stretch the truth to the point of being called a lier? Please feel free to point them out. I have already destroyed Kopel's web site for inaccuracies so I am confident I can point out others. I'm also very open to having lies pointed out to me.

Why call Hannity a lier? Have you listened to his show? To me he may be a Bush supporter but he has backup for every statement many which are true. He is widely recognized as a honest individual so i disagree with him being a lier. And i can't say anything about Coulter because i haven't read her stuff so i won't say anything about her.

Why call Hannity a lier? Because he is. He's a documented lier AND racist. He's been fired from multiple jobs for lying on the air and for promoting racist ideals. How he has a high profile job right now is mind boggling. I guess I should ask you, have you listened to his show or seen Hannity and Colmes? And if so, how? I didn't think FoxNews was available in Canada yet?

I'll stand by not watching the film, i think its too bias and like i was taught when writing a good essay, always show both sides of the issue, i don't think Moore did that.

Well, you do yourself a dis-service then. If you really want to make a good comment on the film, watch it then come back and tell us where the inaccuracies are in your mind. The key there is "in your mind".

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by sjwalter@Oct 19 2004, 01:58 AM
And wanting world support will never clean up terrorism. The whole world didn't want the US to invade Iraq. Terrorism will have to come to their doors first before they decide to combat it, just like it happened to the US.

Well first of all, Iraq had nothing to do with 911. That is why the world did not agree to the invasion. What is so hard to understand about that? The world wants to prevent a series of unilateral invasions by stronger nations because of "perceived threats".

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald+Oct 19 2004, 02:14 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lanny_MacDonald @ Oct 19 2004, 02:14 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-sjwalter@Oct 19 2004, 01:58 AM
And wanting world support will never clean up terrorism.# The whole world didn't want the US to invade Iraq.# Terrorism will have to come to their doors first before they decide to combat it, just like it happened to the US.

Well first of all, Iraq had nothing to do with 911. That is why the world did not agree to the invasion. What is so hard to understand about that? The world wants to prevent a series of unilateral invasions by stronger nations because of "perceived threats". [/b][/quote]
I disagree...

well, not with everything.

I don't believe Saddam had anything to do with 9-11, never have.

But, that's not why the world disagreed with the invasion. Well, maybe the common folk....but not world governments. Too many had their hands in Saddam's pie and didn't want that pie taken away.

Your talk is as if the US is a big, evil bulldozer and the rest of the nations of the world are good to the last drop and ready to put a stop to 'American Imperialism'.

You talk oodles about the corrupt US government. If you think the rest of the governments of the world (specifically those that opposed action in Iraq) are pure in their motives you are sadly mistaken.

Maybe that's not what you believe, but it sure does come off that way.

[kipperfan]

Originally posted by sjwalter+Oct 19 2004, 01:52 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (sjwalter @ Oct 19 2004, 01:52 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

1.You havent watched the film, and YOU are calling IT to biased. So from what youve HEARD about the film youve created an oppinion, stand by it, and now wont watch the movie. Theres some definate irony here.

2.Even if the film is biased(which it is) it doesnt mean you can avoid or discount the solid and supported points that Moore made in the show. Granted some of his claims stretched the facts, and didnt show the whole truth, but at least half the film's material was 100% valid, agree with it or not.

3.How can you say if Moore did or did not do something in 911 if you didnt see the film in question?

In Conclusion: The movie is biased, but your are more biased, by not even giving this show a chance, and then denouncing it as biased, is irronoeus and disgusting on your part. You are Bill O'Rielly.

Your ONLY oppinion on this movie can be : No comment, because you got nothing to comment on. And dont even post a response until youve watched the movie, I wont discuss this with you, its discussing quantum physics with a 4 year old.

I've read enough reviews to know that the film is bias. I don't need to watch it too know that it is.

Read the review i posted, thats why i won't watch it. [/b][/quote]
Your only reference is movie reviews?? HA HA

No matter how much you disagree with the message presented, watch the material buddy. You cant avoid the truth.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by sjwalter@Oct 19 2004, 01:51 AM
Clinton needs a permission slip to invade Afghnastan (sp?) because Bush didn't need too.# Or did he ask the UN first?# We all know the UN is corrupt.

I'm sure if Clinton had really pressed the issue he could have invaded Afganastan. (sp?)

I'm not talking about permission from the UN (which in no way got in Bush's way on the Afghanistan invasion). I'm talking about permission from his own government and citizens. There is no way that before 9/11 Clinton would have been able to make a case for going into Afghanistan. You think the coalition is small now, it would have been non-existent then. Unless by "pressing the case", you mean fearmongering - then yes, Clinton probably could have made a case. It just isn't something someone should do in a democratic country. A fascist country sure.

After the Afghanistan conflict (which hasn't even finished yet), Bush played on people's fear to invade a country that in no way was threat to America.

BTW, here are some positive reviews for Fahrenheit 9/11. I guess they cancel each other out, right?

http://www.calendarlive.com/movies/la-0517...0,4928772.story

http://www.observer.com/pages/story.asp?ID=9227

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file...DDG357AP2J1.DTL

[kipperfan]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan+Oct 19 2004, 02:20 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Displaced Flames fan @ Oct 19 2004, 02:20 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Well first of all, Iraq had nothing to do with 911. That is why the world did not agree to the invasion. What is so hard to understand about that? The world wants to prevent a series of unilateral invasions by stronger nations because of "perceived threats".

I disagree...

well, not with everything.

I don't believe Saddam had anything to do with 9-11, never have.

But, that's not why the world disagreed with the invasion. Well, maybe the common folk....but not world governments. Too many had their hands in Saddam's pie and didn't want that pie taken away.

Your talk is as if the US is a big, evil bulldozer and the rest of the nations of the world are good to the last drop and ready to put a stop to 'American Imperialism'.

You talk oodles about the corrupt US government. If you think the rest of the governments of the world (specifically those that opposed action in Iraq) are pure in their motives you are sadly mistaken.

Maybe that's not what you believe, but it sure does come off that way. [/b][/quote]
No of course other countries arent noble in the motives, but at the same time they arent stomping over the soverignty of other nations in the process of their mis-intentions, something the US has continually had no problem doing.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by kipperfan@Oct 19 2004, 02:29 AM

No of course other countries arent noble in the motives, but at the same time they arent stomping over the soverignty of other nations in the process of their mis-intentions, something the US has continually had no problem doing.

Continually? Please back this up.

Saddam was pretty good about stomping on the sovereignty of his neighbors wasn't he?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Oct 19 2004, 02:32 AM
Continually? Please back this up.

Saddam was pretty good about stomping on the sovereignty of his neighbors wasn't he?

At the urging, and with technical support from guess who.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Oct 19 2004, 02:20 AM
You talk oodles about the corrupt US government. If you think the rest of the governments of the world (specifically those that opposed action in Iraq) are pure in their motives you are sadly mistaken.

Maybe that's not what you believe, but it sure does come off that way.

So is corruption a reason for invasion? I'm not saying Iraq was clean. It was not. But it did not deserve to be invaded for "corruption". If that is the motivation then who gets to invade the US and liberate us from oppression?

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction+Oct 19 2004, 02:34 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FlamesAddiction @ Oct 19 2004, 02:34 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Displaced Flames fan@Oct 19 2004, 02:32 AM
Continually? Please back this up.

Saddam was pretty good about stomping on the sovereignty of his neighbors wasn't he?

At the urging, and with technical support from guess who. [/b][/quote]
Ah, that's a new one. Never knew that the US government backed and promoted the invasion of mighty Kuwait.

Wow.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald+Oct 19 2004, 02:37 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lanny_MacDonald @ Oct 19 2004, 02:37 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Displaced Flames fan@Oct 19 2004, 02:20 AM
You talk oodles about the corrupt US government. If you think the rest of the governments of the world (specifically those that opposed action in Iraq) are pure in their motives you are sadly mistaken.

Maybe that's not what you believe, but it sure does come off that way.

So is corruption a reason for invasion? I'm not saying Iraq was clean. It was not. But it did not deserve to be invaded for "corruption". If that is the motivation then who gets to invade the US and liberate us from oppression?

[/b][/quote]
1. I wasn't talking about Iraq's corruption.
2. Never suggested corruption was a reason for invasion.

You're lost or something.

[kipperfan]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan+Oct 19 2004, 02:32 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Displaced Flames fan @ Oct 19 2004, 02:32 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-kipperfan@Oct 19 2004, 02:29 AM

No of course other countries arent noble in the motives, but at the same time they arent stomping over the soverignty of other nations in the process of their mis-intentions, something the US has continually had no problem doing.

Continually? Please back this up.

Saddam was pretty good about stomping on the sovereignty of his neighbors wasn't he? [/b][/quote]
Yes, and you and your fellow Americans whole heartedly supported his removal from power, with extreme force.

Bad example.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by kipperfan@Oct 19 2004, 02:45 AM

Yes, and you and your fellow Americans whole heartedly supported his removal from power, with extreme force.

Bad example.

Continually? Please back that up.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan+Oct 19 2004, 02:41 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Displaced Flames fan @ Oct 19 2004, 02:41 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

At the urging, and with technical support from guess who.

Ah, that's a new one. Never knew that the US government backed and promoted the invasion of mighty Kuwait.

Wow. [/b][/quote]
Saddam Hussein was told by ambassador April Glaspie that the U.S. was not interested in his dispute with Kuwait and would not stand in his way. Shortly after the green light was given, he invaded. If not for the information Glaspie gave him, it is unlikely that he would have invaded Kuwait.