It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Teens banned from Moore's film

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 02:03 PM
link   
B-T, Moore doesn't champion the "little man" issues, all he does is manipulate the non-thinking little man. I assure you, the American "little man" does not stand with Moore when he says. "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." The baseball cap may fool those who are half awake, but it doesn't fool all.

As far as Bush taking care of business, isn't that what he is supposed to do? Let's see, cake - eat it. Cake - eat it. Can't have both, what do I want?




posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 02:28 PM
link   
Big C, I wouldn't mess with the Admins, thats like playing chicken with a train, you not gonna win. Anyways.....

Mr. Moore is not as great as you say, but it still bs that the conservatives are controlling the ratings people to keep people from watching this film. Sorry, censorship is wrong. Just like Bush censoring the photos of dead troops or him getting anything criticizing or making fun of him banned.



posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 02:34 PM
link   
Thanks James. But, its a Catch-22. Even if I stayed silent, there would be another admin guy to find something new to go after me for.



posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 05:44 PM
link   
Thomas Crowne,

Truth in one man's eyes is a lie in anothers. Get with it.

There are two sides to every story. You call Moore's truths lies, but that's because you only see it from your perspective. See it from the perspective or a liberal, radical, or even Moore himself. Vice-versa, Moore will definitely see your truths as lies.

Oh wait, that's right, your reputation, Thomas Crowne, is seeing EVERYTHING from your "right" side!


P.S. Are you still going to ensure my elimination to "protect society?"


[edit on 15-6-2004 by sweatmonicaIdo]



posted on Jun, 16 2004 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
B-T, Moore doesn't champion the "little man" issues, all he does is manipulate the non-thinking little man. I assure you, the American "little man" does not stand with Moore when he says. "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." The baseball cap may fool those who are half awake, but it doesn't fool all.

As far as Bush taking care of business, isn't that what he is supposed to do? Let's see, cake - eat it. Cake - eat it. Can't have both, what do I want?


Personal perspective: my father was being screwed by GM at the time "Roger & Me" came out......it hit home.

If, as several agencies have clearly stated, 90% of those held in Iraqi prisons by US forces were innocent, that gives strong credence to Moore's statement, no?
It's also been documented that we relied on false information from supposed "friendlys" in our attempt to target-missle Saddam, resulting in numerous non-combatant deaths. I can put myself in their sandals & understand why they've taken up arms against us; why can't you?



posted on Jun, 16 2004 @ 02:56 PM
link   
900% of those being held are innocent? I have heard nothing of this. Interesting percentage. What agency is reporting this? Are you talking about news agency, intelligence agency, what? The last I heard, it certainly was not the case that 90% were innocent. Information is fluid, though, and I'm willing to keep an open mind, but I don't believe that 90% outside the prison is innocent.

We know that we have found nothing substantial in Iraq, in regard to chemical/biological weapons stockpiles. What they have found is mobile labs, formulas and research, the ability to make it and the connections and ties to the groups that want to kill us. As well, not that this is evidence of anything, but, Hussein had his own personal reason for wanting to hit the U.S., and that is the fact that he was set up by George '41 for an attack before the first war there. I have yet to understand why he did that to Hussein, I don't seewhere any benefit was gained.

Regardless, what we do know, despite a seriously weakened intelligence ability, Hussein had the weapons, used the weapons, and after the first war, did not cooperate with inspections, but instead, played a shell game at all times. We know that in the events leading to 9-11-01, Iraqi intelligence people met with the group that attacked us. We know that Hussein trained terrorists, and that terrorists used Iraq as safe haven. And, we know from the way he tortured and killed his own people, Hussein was an extremely dangerous wild card and had to be removed were we to take this War on Terror seriously.

Uh, how are we going to get out of there, though. And do we really expect them to maintain a democracy?



posted on Jun, 16 2004 @ 03:56 PM
link   
As far as the missiles tageting Hussein killing many noncombatants, I don't recall that, either.

I think I am getting news deprivation by not watching more than Fox and CNN. After many months of these two, I feel conficent that they are working together to keep us in the dark, both feeding only bias, both leaving a lot to be desired.



posted on Jun, 16 2004 @ 05:47 PM
link   
Or on my own. I'm suppressing a deep seeded homicidal rage against several VP's at a certain client right now, or else I'd look it up for you.
I've had a day from hell & am ready to beat the ever lovin' snot out of someone(s).
The Peter Principal has never been so well exampled to me as it was today.........and with 'tude, to boot.



posted on Jun, 16 2004 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Of course you've never heard or seen this TC, you don't want to. Just like the republicans who don't see or hear that Haliburton(sp?) company overcharged and scammed billions. Then Bush goes hey, we'll keep doing business with you anyways.

Just cause you don't "see" it or "hear" it, doesn't mean it didn't happen.



posted on Jun, 16 2004 @ 06:58 PM
link   
Everything I see you post makes me laugh. Thanks for the entertainment (talking to thread starter).



posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 03:57 AM
link   
B-T, sorry to hear you aree having stress issues (Stress - the overwhelming desire to choke the ever-lovin' crap outta somebody who dearly deserves it!). I understand thed time constraints. I flitter my time away when I could be looking it up myself. As a matter of fact, I intended on researching L-3 Communications to see if it is a good investment, but instead, here I am.

James, thank you for your enlightening words. Were I to bookmark every bit of news, I'd be able to give examples of how Halliburton has actually tried to save the government money by doing things in a more practical and efficient way, but the government didn't want that. Were you not so interested in wanting to see only what your politics guide you to see, you'd know that contract companies have to do it as the government wants them to do it. I work for a contract company, I see it daily. Even an efficient company has to do it as the client wants it done, even if the client is the innefficient government!



posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 04:02 AM
link   
By the way, James, what say we do not assume we know why the other doesn't know what the other purports to know? While I doubt I am wrong, I'm sure you are!


(Note, the smiley face, indicating that the printed jab was done in total jest, for the sake of humor only, not to be taken as a flame!)



posted on Jun, 19 2004 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
900% of those being held are innocent? I have heard nothing of this. Interesting percentage. What agency is reporting this? Are you talking about news agency, intelligence agency, what? The last I heard, it certainly was not the case that 90% were innocent. Information is fluid, though, and I'm willing to keep an open mind, but I don't believe that 90% outside the prison is innocent.

We know that we have found nothing substantial in Iraq, in regard to chemical/biological weapons stockpiles. What they have found is mobile labs, formulas and research, the ability to make it and the connections and ties to the groups that want to kill us. As well, not that this is evidence of anything, but, Hussein had his own personal reason for wanting to hit the U.S., and that is the fact that he was set up by George '41 for an attack before the first war there. I have yet to understand why he did that to Hussein, I don't seewhere any benefit was gained.

Regardless, what we do know, despite a seriously weakened intelligence ability, Hussein had the weapons, used the weapons, and after the first war, did not cooperate with inspections, but instead, played a shell game at all times. We know that in the events leading to 9-11-01, Iraqi intelligence people met with the group that attacked us. We know that Hussein trained terrorists, and that terrorists used Iraq as safe haven. And, we know from the way he tortured and killed his own people, Hussein was an extremely dangerous wild card and had to be removed were we to take this War on Terror seriously.

Uh, how are we going to get out of there, though. And do we really expect them to maintain a democracy?


maybe you didn't hear, but the 911 commission released a staement the other day that they had found absolutely no evidence of a connection between Al Queda and Iraq. just thought id let you know



posted on Jun, 20 2004 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by dunkleskates
maybe you didn't hear, but the 911 commission released a staement the other day that they had found absolutely no evidence of a connection between Al Queda and Iraq. just thought id let you know


Do you know how far off the mark you are?

Do you?!

Im sick of people reading the false headlines ran by liberal news outlets.

The 9/11 Commission found no collaboration on 9/11 between Al-Quaida and Iraq but did find significant contacts and connections

Just thought Id let you know, now go and leave the real news up to us.

[edit on 20-6-2004 by Agent47]



posted on Jun, 20 2004 @ 02:34 AM
link   
The what? The 9-11 Commision? Are you referring to that partisan group of politicians, one of which should have been investigated instead of on a board of investigation? I laugh in your general direction; a belly laugh at that!



posted on Jun, 22 2004 @ 12:14 PM
link   
Or Schlockumentary... whichever... both fit. Moore is nothing more than a bloated opportunitist set on peddling his socilialist, anti-american agenda to those willing to pay a hard-earned buck for it. Bowling for Columbine was found to have numerous staged interviews and conversations with supposedly "objective outsiders". Unfortunately the truth was revealed when one such "interviewee" revealed that everything had been scripted and carefully rehearsed.

The same holds true with f911. Believe whatever you'd like, but if you honestly believe that Moore's films are honest and objective documentaries, I have one heck of a piece of land that I'd just love to sell ya!



posted on Jun, 22 2004 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo
Or Schlockumentary... whichever... both fit.


i agree. i made myself watch an interview of him by george stephanopolis and he admitted this whole movie in an op-ed piece, his own opinion. he came right out and said this along with saying it wasnt "fair and balanced" and shouldnt be considered as such.

he's made it clear that once again he hasnt made a documentary but a film expersssing his own opinion. i give much credit for that. he is being honest about that and that earns my respect. however the sad part is a lot of people probably didnt see that interview and probably think its a documetary.


i also happened to catch a promo of it last night on my TV. attention whore is the term that fits him to a T. i thought i was going to have a siezure watching it. SOMEONE made sure it was all flashing and gaudy. now i dont like the guy and i admit this and the first thing i thought was "oh jeez not this BS!". but i decided to actually check the promo out instead of just changing the channel (i was putting together a puzzle at the time anyway so its not like i was really watching TV, it was just on for background noise). and the next impression i had was different, no it wasnt that i liked moore but that the promo/commercial went over board. you know how you see a commercial for a movie you think is really gonna tank and it turns out that they used some of the best clips from the movie to promote the movie? yeah thats the impression i got. even compared to "white chicks" i want to see white chicks more and i'd rather have an angry badger stuffed in my shorts than watch that movie at all.

but yeah moore doesnt call this a documentary. in fact i dont believe he has ever called any of his films documentaries, i know he's said the opposite in the past, that that arent documentaries.

at least the guy is that honest about what he does at least.



posted on Jun, 22 2004 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThePrankMonkey

but yeah moore doesnt call this a documentary. in fact i dont believe he has ever called any of his films documentaries, i know he's said the opposite in the past, that that arent documentaries.

at least the guy is that honest about what he does at least.


Except he had no problem accepting the top award at Cannes for his non-fiction "documentary."



posted on Jun, 22 2004 @ 01:56 PM
link   
Well, I don't know if I could use the name Moore and the word "honest" together in a sentence... well, not a serious one anyway.

I realize, as I saw the interview, that he acknowledged that it was NOT fair nor balanced, was a representation of his personal opinions, he also opined that this movie was NOT designed to be political. but "representative of the facts." Hmmmmm... now THAT would have to be a HUGE lie.

Additionally, he went on at the end of the interview to condemn Canada for trying to be like America and stated that he felt that America would be a better place if it tried to be more like Canada. I was stumped and sent astupor.

On a final note, he just announced today that he has sold the rights of this film to be shown in Syria and Libya. What a true patriot he is. Now, is he part of the solution (As some bleeding heart lib... er, I mean socialists would have you believe) or part of the problem???



posted on Jun, 22 2004 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Faisca

Originally posted by ThePrankMonkey

but yeah moore doesnt call this a documentary. in fact i dont believe he has ever called any of his films documentaries, i know he's said the opposite in the past, that that arent documentaries.

at least the guy is that honest about what he does at least.


Except he had no problem accepting the top award at Cannes for his non-fiction "documentary."



yeah i was gonna mention that but i didnt think it rally needed mentioning, everyone knows he got an oscar for a "documentary" he admitted isnt a documentary. and the only reason he accepted it was so he could say he won an oscar which really isnt a big deal. a bunch of rich movie makers giving each other awards, talk about self congratulatory. yeah lets not forget these "awards". cannes is about the same thing.

and the very first shot of this promo? it mentions a 20 minute applause from cannes. i actually dont understand the point of bringing that up. just more rich snobs giving each other awards. i guess it being in france had nothing to do with the applause? i guess a lot of those who attend these events are liberals had nothing to do with that huh?

its only a documentary when he's given an award, the rest of the time he's honest enough to admit its just his opinion and not a documentary.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join