Michael Moore Answers Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11

Originally posted by Affirmative Reaction

Originally posted by Koka

Left Wing Ideal World = Share and Share Alike

Sorry, koka, but according to you, your ideal world, i.e. share and share alike, = COM(M)UNISM!!!

Not in MY country, Comrad!!!!

You and Hillary can go to Havana and live out your left wing fantasies�..

- Good call, I was expecting something like that.

That old adage "Power corrupts" comes to mind, which is the main reason Communism fails, we've all read "Animal Farm", but that other Orwellian classic "1984" (the pitfalls of Communisim), do you not see the US accelerating down that route. Ironic, for such an outspoken, alleged "Democracy".

I note, your lack of denial when it comes to my statement "Right Wing Ideal World = Every Man for Themselves "

Originally posted by Koka



I note, your lack of denial when it comes to my statement "Right Wing Ideal World = Every Man for Themselves "

That was the least of my worries, what with the other preposterous statement you made. The problem is, you vilify capitalism, which is what I expect you mean when you say, "right wing", although not all those who believe in capitalism are what you would call "right wing".

The difference between the left and right is the left wants to give everybody a hand out...the right wants to give them a hand up. Left wing politics depends on those who have nothing as their voting base, and once in office, keeps them there AS their base by continuing the cycle of "hand outs". Keep them poor, and tell them you will make things better for them. Raise the minimum wage beyond what the economy can withstand, causing rampant inflation. They can't afford simple things like a burger at Mickey D's now, so they have to stay on welfare. You've just given him a fish...he'll eat for a day.

Capitalists make sure that business prospers. It creates jobs. People make money. What do they do with it? They invest it. What does that do? Improves the economy. What do you do with those who do not want to work? Make them do so by cutting their benefits off after a certain period of time, except for those who really need it, and force them to train for new jobs. Now you have taught a man to fish. He'll feed himself and his family for a lifetime....No, it�s not cruel, it�s life. Work for what you get, or don�t ask me to hold up your end of the stick.

I prefer to have my tax dollars spent on people who really need assistance, not those who simply don't WANT to work...share and share alike? Bull...get off your butt and get a job....

So, people who vote to the left are lazy and on welfare, and people who vote for the right are hard working honest citizens, who only want to help those less fortunate than themselves. I'm glad we cleared that up, cos' I thought it was alot greyer than that.

Maybe the Right should also add education, health and transport, to their to do list. Hold on, thats no good, the capitalists aren't going to make much money investing in those areas, best just neglect them.

Unemployment figures, in the UK, have fallen dramatically since the Left wing, Labour Party, got into power. So maybe the problem of lazy welfare spongers, is indicative of the state of the US.

I prefer to have my tax dollars spent on people who really need assistance.......

Like the Taliban or Saddam Hussein...? That was money well spent, sorry you're still spending it.

Originally posted by Koka
So, people who vote to the left are lazy and on welfare, and people who vote for the right are hard working honest citizens, who only want to help those less fortunate than themselves.

You see, that's the problem with a lot of people here...they twist others words like a ribbon around a package. Are you related to Michael Moore-on? That is NOT what I said at all. Go back and read the post. I said that the left wing relies on the lower class as it's voting base, using a pessimistic view of the world to make them think they are getting screwed by the right, when the truth is if they didn't have them AS a voting base, they would have no voters. They have to keep them on welfare to keep them as voters. Capitalists want the entire NATION to prosper, as they depend upon it to make money. If people have no money to buy their products, they have no business. It's simple. Perhaps too simple for some to understand. That must be why you twist my words to try to fit your purpose.

Unemployment figures, in the UK, have fallen dramatically since the Left wing, Labour Party, got into power. So maybe the problem of lazy welfare spongers, is indicative of the state of the US.

WHAT!!!??? Hey, who are you trying to fool here? I spent three years in the UK, and still have many, many friends there that I talk to on a daily basis. GB is a socialist nation, and there are a HUGE number of people on the public dole!!! I guess you must be including them as "government workers", eh? That's a great way to keep your jobless rates low..." Ah, yes, I'm a couch cushion tester for the British Government..."


Give me a break....

Your mates in the UK, don't happen to be Tories (Conservatives) do they?
UK Unemployment

...and it's actually a fair bit lower than that shown, as it only depicts up to 2002.

[edit on 15-7-2004 by Koka]

Originally posted by Koka
Your mates in the UK, don't happen to be Tories (Conservatives) do they?
UK Unemployment

...and it's actually a fair bit lower than that shown, as it only depicts up to 2002.

[edit on 15-7-2004 by Koka]

I don't ask their poiltical affiliation, and I expect there is a mix of parties represented, as jobs range from military, to ship builders, buisness owners, police officers, government workers, and several getting government checks.

What your little graph, put out by the people who make the claims, hmmm...doesn't show is those who are on the dole for "disability". You and I both know what that little scam is, don't we?


And should we get started on the wonderful "Health Care System" in GB? Gee, do those ridiculously high taxes you pay add up to what the real British working man gets in return? I've never waited 3 months to see a doctor in my life!

No, the welfare system isn't an American phenomenon...It's highly abused in your country as well. Jump off that high horse, but don't break a leg...it's a long way down...


[edit on 15-7-2004 by Affirmative Reaction]

Moderator's note... please keep it civil, folks.

-- Thanks!

Originally posted by Affirmative Reaction
What your little graph, put out by the people who make the claims, hmmm...doesn't show is those who are on the dole for "disability". You and I both know what that little scam is, don't we?

And should we get started on the wonderful "Health Care System" in GB? Gee, do those ridiculously high taxes you pay add up to what the real British working man gets in return? I've never waited 3 months to see a doctor in my life!

No, the welfare system isn't an American phenomenon...It's highly abused in your country as well. [edit on 15-7-2004 by Affirmative Reaction]

I've never waited 3 months to see a doctor either, in fact the last time I went to see one, was late last year, when I walked into an NHS Clinic in the centre of London and got seen within half an hour.
I have absolutely no problem with paying even more tax, you forget I'm a Socialist, I've seen many improvements in many areas of British Society, relative to when the Tories were in the house. There are many areas which have not changed which require a lot of improvement, but they'll be addressed over time.

Any welfare system will be abused, no more so than by Margaret Thatcher, who sought to close down a multitude of hospitals and schools, in her time, one of which was my own.

Britain has an unspoken philosophy of "Lead by Example", and although not perfect, have made a great many advances in cross-culture understanding and acceptance.

Ok, this is a bit off topic but i just noted something that freaked me out a bit.

Donguillermo, the picture in your avatar of Hillary Clinton.

In that picture she looks exactly like my mother, except my mother has a few more pounds....but the look alike is freaky. Could my mother be Hillary Clinton in disguise?

Seriously thou, they do look alike.
BTW, i love my mother, but I don't like Hillary much thou.

[edit on 16-7-2004 by Muaddib]

This will be the third thread I ask this on: What is the connection between Osama Bin Laden and his family? It is widely known that he has been disowned. In reading a transcript of the movie, only 2 Bin Ladens are mentioned by name, one is dead, and one is a half brother who, according to google, does not exist, nor to alternate spellings of his name. I see a VERY significant gap in the "facts" of the movie there. Perhaps someone could explain how this does not renforce the unfounded predjudice that "all arabs are terrorists". I certainly beleive it does, to form the only link shown between Osama and Bush, you have to assume that everyone in the Bin Laden family was complicit in the terrorist activities.

Originally posted by PB
This will be the third thread I ask this on:

You are asking it in the wrong thread and forum. Try the terrorism forum.

Originally posted by Koka


I've never waited 3 months to see a doctor either, in fact the last time I went to see one, was late last year, when I walked into an NHS Clinic in the centre of London and got seen within half an hour.
I have absolutely no problem with paying even more tax, you forget I'm a Socialist, I've seen many improvements in many areas of British Society, relative to when the Tories were in the house. There are many areas which have not changed which require a lot of improvement, but they'll be addressed over time.

Any welfare system will be abused, no more so than by Margaret Thatcher, who sought to close down a multitude of hospitals and schools, in her time, one of which was my own.

Britain has an unspoken philosophy of "Lead by Example", and although not perfect, have made a great many advances in cross-culture understanding and acceptance.

Ahhh...a Londoner, and "my hospital", and an admitted socialist. Things are coming into much clearer view.

I'll tell you what...go visit my friend the ship builder in Sunderland, and ask him about his cancer scare where he had to wait two weeks for a chest x-ray, then three months to find out if he was going to die or not. Of course you have no problems at "your hospital", and if you have no problem with paying even higher taxes, that must mean you have the money to pay them....most do not. But I digress....

I'll tell you what...I'll quit knocking your screwed up system, and you do the same for me, as we will never agree. Try making your own system perfect before you cut down another's.....

Originally posted by Affirmative Reaction
You are asking it in the wrong thread and forum. Try the terrorism forum.

didnt realize asking why moore is wrong wasnt appropriate for the micheal moore forum

Originally posted by PB

Originally posted by Affirmative Reaction
You are asking it in the wrong thread and forum. Try the terrorism forum.

didnt realize asking why moore is wrong wasnt appropriate for the micheal moore forum

You didn't ask why Moore-on was wrong...read your post. You didn't mention him once. Try phrasing your questions correctly.

Originally posted by PB
This will be the third thread I ask this on: What is the connection between Osama Bin Laden and his family? It is widely known that he has been disowned. In reading a transcript of the movie, only 2 Bin Ladens are mentioned by name, one is dead, and one is a half brother who, according to google, does not exist, nor to alternate spellings of his name. I see a VERY significant gap in the "facts" of the movie there. Perhaps someone could explain how this does not renforce the unfounded predjudice that "all arabs are terrorists". I certainly beleive it does, to form the only link shown between Osama and Bush, you have to assume that everyone in the Bin Laden family was complicit in the terrorist activities.

The link between Bush and the Bin Ladens is well documented, Bush went to school with Bin Ladens sister, Bin Laden money went to fund one of the bushes start up costs for a oil venture. Yes the whitehouse put the OK on letting the Bin Ladens leave the country in the days following 9/11 while no other public flights were aloud:

Here's a few bits from the 9/11 commission, you can read the whole thing here

someone brought to that group a proposal that we authorize a request from the Saudi embassy. The Saudi embassy had apparently said that they feared for the lives of Saudi citizens, because they thought there would be retribution against Saudis in the United States as it became obvious to Americans that this attack was essentially done by Saudis, and that there were even Saudi citizens in the United States who were part of the bin Ladin family, which is a very large family -- very large family.

The Saudi embassy, therefore, asked for these people to be evacuated

The request came to me and I refused to approve it. I suggested that it be routed to the FBI and that the FBI look at the names of the individuals who were going to be on the passenger manifest and that they approve it or not. I spoke with the at that time the number-two person in the FBI, Dale Watson, and asked him to deal with this issue. The FBI then approved -- after some period of time, and I can't tell you how long -- approved the flight.

After the FBI was a little upset because at the very least they wanted things like DNA samples and any information. Look at it this way, your brother murders 3000 people do you really think the police wouldn't be at your door asking things like "where is he" and "what can you tell us." I think any human being in that situation would not only feel compelled to give that information but would also give it freely in this type of situation. What kind of person would try to run and hide, if it was truly a safety concern to get them out of the country than when they got to their home country did they contact the FBI and offer blood samples and any information? Not that I know of, they sound like their hiding something to me. The above testimony is regarded as fact, it has not been disputed by anyone with the actual knowledge or authority to actually dispute it.

Originally posted by Affirmative Reaction
There is nothing to impeach Bush over

Yes, let's make sure that impeachment is reserved for the personal sex lives of Presidents, and does not extend to warmonger Presidents who go to war on forged evidence.

[edit on 17-7-2004 by Otts]

Originally posted by Affirmative Reaction
[Capitalists make sure that business prospers. It creates jobs. People make money.

And when business prospers, it starts looking for ways to cut jobs so it can make even more money. Like banks that cut operating hours and thus bank teller jobs, replacing them with phone or Internet services (which the customers have to pay for, of course). Unless the businesses just choose to move their plants to the Philippines or to Honduras, where they can get labor cheap, and, oh, avoid those pesky unions. And those towns where there's 50 % unemployment rate because the plant closed down? They're lazy, all of them. Panhandlers who are a nuisance to the true contributors to society... or the Bush campaign.

Now I saw Fahrenheit 9/11 tonight... and you know what, it's true that some of this is exaggeration - for example the idyllic scenes in pre-war Iraq. But I don't agree that if one of the 59 deceits is proved right it makes MM's movie a commentary and not a documentary. Everyone is biased. There have been people who contributed amazingly to science who also thought that women having a smaller brain proved they were less smart, or that meteorites cannot exist, because there are no stones in the sky. Does that make their contribution to science less valid? It does not. Knowledge, or those who provide it, is never perfect.

Besides, I can't help but think that by asking that MM's movie to be 100% objective in order to be called a documentary, his opponents are applying a double standard, since they're obviously not holding Bush to that... especially where the WMDs are concerned.

I love Michael Moore and his work. He is the Lenny Bruce of our time. We will be deconstructing him for decades.

That does not mean I believe everything he says, or worship the ground he walks on. He is human, for crying out loud. Extremely human.

That does not mean he does not have a following of worshippers. I post an apparent spoof of Michael Moore (which is ironic enough that I think he would get a kick out if it) and donguillermo tries to get me banned (see the thread). Some people just can't take a joke, and that's worrisome for them.

Coming from an advocate for Michael Moore and "free spech", the irony is so thick you can cut it with a knife.

The truth is drawn in shades of gray, not black and white.

Michael Moore calls our attention to things we ought to pay attention to, but sometimes he goes over the top to do it. Does that mean he's lying? No! He's trying to get our attention.

Michael Moore doesn't tell us what to think, he simply tells us to think!

What this means is that we should take a look and decide for ourselves.

Is that too much to expect?

Majic says

That does not mean he does not have a following of worshippers. I post an apparent spoof of Michael Moore (which is ironic enough that I think he would get a kick out if it) and donguillermo tries to get me banned (see the thread). Some people just can't take a joke, and that's worrisome for them.

Coming from an advocate for Michael Moore and "free spech", the irony is so thick you can cut it with a knife.

Please spare us the sermonizing about free speech and irony. You provided a source link for the material in your post, and the material in your post is not to be found at that link. That is fundamentally dishonest, and also violates the rules of the ATS Forum.

Not only that, but you didn't provide a real link to where your material came from. That is called plagiarism. You seem to think you can dismiss two examples of intellectual dishonesty by simply saying that it was all a big joke. I don't think too many people are laughing along with you.

Your attempt to have me banned for that post, on whatever basis you might choose, says far more about what motivates you than it does about me, and speaks far more eloquently to my point than anything I could ever possibly post.