Fahrenheit 9/11

[Anonymous]

I had a skim through the Libertarians website - it's an interesting brew alright. End social security, promote immigration, legalise drugs, cut government down. Most interesting is the mix of policies usually associated with the right and policy mainstays of the left. There's a lot of common sense radicalism there, but I'm a little rattled by the rather enthusiastic embrace of guns which seem to overshadow what I'd see as bigger issues. It's in danger of sounding like the political wing of the NRA. Ending social security - can't sign up for that yet. I believe in safety nets but I can see where you're coming from. On the other hand I totally agree with the failure of the "ban it and it'll go away" mindset.
Interesting, refreshing, but not a vote winner with me. Thanks for pointing it out.

 

[hedgewizard1]

Social Security is a bust. Privitization of it would only help everyone. Three counties in Texas took advantage of a loop hole and were able to opt out of SS. I'll get the details if you like. The short version is that the retirement checks will actually be 3-5 times what SS would pay. And that does not include their pensions. Also bear in mind that the money you pay into SS isn't your money. This was determined in court when a man being deported sued for what he paid into the SS fund, and lost.

The whole gun thing is so overblown, packed with lies, distortions, and personal issues. The bottom line there is simple: more guns mean less crime. Economist John Lott did a study a few years back, looking at gun laws and crime. Unlike previous studies, this one covered every county in the country. What he found is that an armed citizenry is big crime deterrent. In places where it's easy to buy guns, and to get concealed carry permits, crime dropped and continues to do so. Places where it is difficult to buy guns have more crime. Further more, in the last 20 years, it gotten easier and easier for American ciitzens to get concealed cary permits. Only 4 states do not have some concealed carry provision. And contrary to the predicitons of "Dodge City shootouts" and blood running in the streets, violent crime is down for the 12 th year in a row.

We know prohibition doesn't work, and studies indicate that treating drug abuse as a medical probelm rather than a legal one would not only be more effective, but cheaper as well.

For the first paragraph, see
The Terrible Truth About Liberals by Neal Boortz.
For the second see More Guns, Less Crime by John Lott.
I'll try to find the Rand Corp. study for the third paragraph.

 

[ArthurASCII]

The whole gun thing is so overblown, packed with lies, distortions, and personal issues.

That's certainly true Hedgewizard. Could the John Lott you mention be the John Lott Jr whose wotk is seriously questioned in an Article here ?

 

[meanderer1]

The bottom line there is simple: more guns mean less crime.

Didn't somebody not a million miles from this thread do a film about the dangers of the proliferation of gun ownership in the USA. Something about Columbine???

 

[Jerry_B]

Actually Jerry, it rather like I'm the cryptozoologist coming in with footprints and hair samples, and you're the scientific establishment saying, "very nice but not nearly enough."

Seeing as the sources coming up with the 'WMD being shipped to Syria', etc. stories are the same that got things wrong elsewhere about Iraq, I think I'll still say that the case is unproven. The intelligence services got it wrong, the administration got it wrong, and there are inklings that some of what went on was part of GWB's foreign policy aims, WMD or not.

 

[austen27]

Didn't somebody not a million miles from this thread do a film about the dangers of the proliferation of gun ownership in the USA. Something about Columbine???

The US has the eighth highest fire arm murder rate in the world.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_wit_fir_cap

I'm staying here, I'm about 200 times less likely to get shot! Plus we don't pay for the priviledge of being ill.

 

[fquake]

Once again, it falls to Bill Hicks to show the way...

"In the U.K., where even the cops aren't allowed to carry guns, there were fourteen deaths from handguns last year. [emphasizing] Ffffffffffffourteen. Now, in the U.S., where you know how we feel about guns (and I'm getting a warm, tingly feeling just saying the fucking word) . . . 23 thousand deaths from handguns. But there's no connection, and you'd be a fool and a communist to make one. There's no connection between having a gun and shooting someone with it and NOT HAVING A GUN AND NOT SHOOTING SOMEONE."

 

[Mike_Pratt33]

Didn't somebody not a million miles from this thread do a film about the dangers of the proliferation of gun ownership in the USA. Something about Columbine???

I don't think Bowling for Columbine ever come to a conclusion on what caused gun crime. It might have been poverty. It might have been that the USA took part in wars. It might have been that most Americans were scared of other americans (and foreigners of course). In the end Moore decided that it was easier to make fun of a geriatric celebrity than to make any serious point.

 

[Anonymous]

I'm a Star! Harken To My Senile, Subsidised, Spurious, Drive

... In the end Moore decided that it was easier to make fun of a geriatric celebrity than to make any serious point.

Hey! You make that sound as if it's necessarily a bad thing!

I can think of worse games.

 

[Anonymous]

FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS!!!!!!

In the end Moore decided that it was easier to make fun of a geriatric celebrity than to make any serious point.

People that want to attack the film milk heston situation more than moore did and in doing so make no serious point. Which is a great pitty.

The trend at the moment is to latch on to the following:

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/08/09/heston.illness/

Which makes me wonder...people argue, "well moore got him when he was at the start of his Alzheimer's", and they say this like its still ok for him to be a political activist????

"From my cold dead hands!"

Sure thing Mister Heston, sir.

Next people are gonna say Jimmy Saville's ok, he's just geriatric. So, when you get your buss pass and pension book you can do and say what the hell you like?

Like Heston said himself:

"If you see a little less spring to my step, if your name fails to leap to my lips, you'll know why. And if I tell you a funny story for the second time, please laugh anyway."

It may be a funny story to you Mister Heston, but I personally don't see what's funny.

Heston called it "symptoms consistent with Alzheimer's disease" and this is AFTER columbine. this was before there were any relative signs...and as heston even at this stage pointed out ""For now, I'm not changing anything. I'll insist on work when I can; the doctors will insist on rest when I must. "

Which suggests to me not a person who can be excused for taking leave of his senses rather a person who stands by what he says and sticks to his guns.

From my cold dead hands indeed.

 

[hedgewizard1]

Since we're off on this tangent, a couple questions. The stats at nationmaster.com indicate 123 handgun mortalities for the US ( .41/ million with a population of 300 hundred million). Add another 400 for rifles and shotguns. That's only about 500 a year. As opposed to the 10,000+ deaths nationmaster.com attribute to motor vehicle related deaths. It's obviously much safer to own a gun than go for a ride.

But soft! Rac is quoting Bill Hicks. Personally, I find it hard to use a comedian's routine as a basis for hard research.

And just to clarify something. Guns do no cause crime. If they did, Switzerland would be awash with blood from the military rifles kept in every household. We've got some serious problems here in the US, social and otherwise. And blaming objects for the actions of people isn't going to make them any better.

And in response to Arthur ASCII's question, yes, it would seem so.
I'm still learning who Tim Lambert is and why his opinion should carry more weight than mine or thine. Seems he's a lecturer in computer science at the UNiversity of New South Wales. Very impressive website, though how he manages to keep up with everything and work is beyond me.

Addendum to the first section, I think we're all aware that the stats from nationmaster.com are wrong. Auto accidents account for something on the order of 50,000 deaths in the US each year, while firearms account for something around 10,000 (homicides and suicides).

 

[Jerry_B]

Whereas it could be argued that cars are a necessity, guns are not. Last time I checked, cars weren't killing all of those people in relation to homicides either, so it's a bit pointless to peg the figures in comparison to guns. And whilst it's possible to juggle the figures one way or another, alot of people are being killed by firearms in the US - their deaths would no doubt have been alot less likely to have taken place if there were gun controls. Citing the Swiss example isn't a good one, as there are strict laws in place for their use, storage, etc.. It's a moot point as to whether the Swiss even need the guns that they have - the case for citizens having firearms is even more tenuous in the US.

 

[Anonymous]

Since we're off on this tangent, a couple questions. The stats at nationmaster.com indicate 123 handgun mortalities for the US ( .41/ million with a population of 300 hundred million). Add another 400 for rifles and shotguns. That's only about 500 a year. As opposed to the 10,000+ deaths nationmaster.com attribute to motor vehicle related deaths. It's obviously much safer to own a gun than go for a ride.

But soft! Rac is quoting Bill Hicks. Personally, I find it hard to use a comedian's routine as a basis for hard research.

Yeah, Hicks's comments are plainly inaccurate or grossly distorted. The figures he quotes for handguns murders outstrip the annual figures for total number of murders around the time of his death.

I would never want it to be made easier to own a gun in the UK, and to state that there's a relationship between gun ownership and deaths from gunshot wounds is no more controversial than the fact there's a relationship between motor vehicle ownership and deaths on the road.

But it doesn't help anyone when people like the late Hicks and Michael Moore use deliberately false or misleading information to support their cause.

There are about 500 murders a year in the UK. If the USA's murder rate was proportionately in line with ours, you'd expect about 2,500 murders there a year.

In fact there are about 20,000.

So something's up, guns or otherwise.

 

[Anonymous]

well ..heres a theory... the huge death rate due to murder (gun realted or otherwise)..always the American public to acept easily casualty figers that woudl send most other countries into riot...and Gang memebers used to handeling guns etc and death among their friends make good soldiers... Vietnam death toll never even got near to the normal background death tol lin the US..

 

[Anonymous]

Re: FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS!!!!!!

People that want to attack the film milk heston situation more than moore did and in doing so make no serious point. Which is a great pitty.

Hook,

whatever you think of Heston, the fact is that Michael Moore has made a career out of getting both public and private figures to say things on camera that he can afterwards present completely out of context in order to make the interviewee look stupid and to bolster his own argument.

Moore doesn't care if his victims are famous or not. If he thinks it will help him make his opposition's case look ridiculous, he is prepared to manipulate anyone's words. Lots of ordinary people have been asked questions on camera by Moore in good faith, only for an edit to present them as answering a completely different question, or making an entirely different point.

Do you think Moore would shrink from making you look daft on camera if it would help him put together another of his cut-and- shut, chopping shop journalism wank-fests?

Even some of his supporters concede that the man has no personal integrity, excusing this on the basis that he's fighting some sort of war, and anything goes.

 

[fquake]

Yeah, Hicks's comments are plainly inaccurate or grossly distorted. The figures he quotes for handguns murders outstrip the annual figures for total number of murders around the time of his death.

So, having guns being avilable freely and having an huge gun crime problem... these two things are not related??

It seems to me that saying he's got the figures wrong is kind of missing the entire point of what the man was saying.

 

[meanderer1]

Agreed rac - I think Hicks was making a general and very pointed point. Trying to make out that he was using accurate statistical evidence is to forget that he was a satirical comedian and not a number cruncher.

Michael Moore really does seem to polarise people. Perhaps his methods are suspect; I have no more concrete evidence of that than I have that Bush/Blair etc were telling the truth about WMD. But I appreciate having someone who goes to the bother of giving the other side of the arguement.

 

[hedgewizard1]

So, having guns being avilable freely and having an huge gun crime problem... these two things are not related??

Actually, rac, you'll find here in the US that an argument can be made that gun control causes homicides. Cities with restricitve gun laws also have high crime rates. Chicago effectively has a handgun ban in effect, and buying any firearm in Illinois is quite difficult. Still, Chicago had the highest homicide rate in the nation last year.

And what is a huge gun crime problem? Considering that about half the households in America have a gun of some kind, it's something like one tenth of one per cent of guns that get used illegally.

Also need to factor in the number of crimes prevented by guns. These numbers are hard to reckon, since people seldom report scaring off an attacker. I've seen estimates as high as 2.5 million a year. But even a much more conservative 50, 000 would indicate that the net result favors gun ownership.

To everyone else, I'm sorry I brought the subject up, can we get back to the topic of Moore's movie?

 

[fquake]

Actually, rac, you'll find here in the US that an argument can be made that gun control causes homicides. Cities with restricitve gun laws also have high crime rates. Chicago effectively has a handgun ban in effect, and buying any firearm in Illinois is quite difficult. Still, Chicago had the highest homicide rate in the nation last year.

Interesting point. I still think that gun control is a good idea, but I take your point that it is not the cure-all that it is sometimes held up to be.

To everyone else, I'm sorry I brought the subject up, can we get back to the topic of Moore's movie?

I agree!

 

[Anonymous]

Re: Re: FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS!!!!!!

Hook,

whatever you think of Heston, the fact is that Michael Moore has made a career out of getting both public and private figures to say things on camera that he can afterwards present completely out of context in order to make the interviewee look stupid and to bolster his own argument.

Well, duh.

Moore doesn't care if his victims are famous or not. If he thinks it will help him make his opposition's case look ridiculous, he is prepared to manipulate anyone's words. Lots of ordinary people have been asked questions on camera by Moore in good faith, only for an edit to present them as answering a completely different question, or making an entirely different point.

I know that, but the post I made about heston wasn't about that. It was about the fact that heston, even for the objectors is a mute point. for me if I were to attack the film would be his abuse of his contact with the actual victims and his manipulation of the situation there on in. I think you're under the misguided impression that I'm defending the film. I'm not, I'm just saying that picking on the subject of Heston for those attacking it weakens any argument. You may want to go back and re-read my post in light of this

Do you think Moore would shrink from making you look daft on camera if it would help him put together another of his cut-and- shut, chopping shop journalism wank-fests?

Did I say he wouldn't? What exactly is the point your making here that addresses the point I was making?

Even some of his supporters concede that the man has no personal integrity, excusing this on the basis that he's fighting some sort of war, and anything goes.

yeah, I see what u mean here, though I wouldn't count me as one of his supporters. in the same way that I feel that those that oppose him weaken and cheapen their argument buy biting the obvious bate that yeilds nothing new, I would also say that his flamboyance shall we say for sake of argument does nothing to the more serious issues he raises, which is a great shame.

so, lets see, what have you told us we didn't know already?

 

[Anonymous]

http://www.uk.imdb.com/news/wenn/#1


Moore Sued for "Doctoring Newspaper"


Oscar-winning director Michael Moore is being sued by a furious American newspaper for allegedly "doctoring" the paper's front page for his controversial documentary Fahrenheit 9/11. A scene in the movie shows newspaper headlines relating to the legally contested 2000 American presidential election and includes a shot of Bloomington, Illinois newspaper The Pantagraph with a headline reading 'Latest Florida recount shows Al Gore won election' - which was not actually used on the first page. Instead the headline was found in much smaller type above a letter to the editor, which the paper says reflects "only the opinions of the letter writer". The Pantagraph has now sent Moore and his production company Lions Gate Entertainment Corp a letter asking him to apologize for using the manipulated cover page and are seeking $1 million in compensatory damages. The paper says, "If Moore wants to 'edit' The Pantagraph, he should apply for a copy-editing job."

 

[Anonymous]

You see, Conners, I knew you had it in you

 

[Anonymous]

Re: Re: Re: FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS!!!!!!

so, lets see, what have you told us we didn't know already?

Hook, I'm not going to tailor every post to suit your specifications concerning where we should be as regards the debate. I took your comments about Heston and used them as a springboard from which to make a point. Other people read the Board too, you know. Take it easier mate, you'll live longer.

 

[Anonymous]

Re: Re: Re: Re: FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS!!!!!!

Hook, I'm not going to tailor every post to suit your specifications concerning where we should be as regards the debate. I took your comments about Heston and used them as a springboard from which to make a point. Other people read the Board too, you know. Take it easier mate, you'll live longer.

sorry, it's just when you headed your post "Hook"...I thought you were addressing me.

I don't expect you to tailor every post to suit my specifications...can't see where I urged you to do so...I was merely correcting you because you'd misinterpretted me again. Springboarding? Springboarding what exactly other than going over the same "givens" that we've been churning over the last few pages. Your last post on doctoring headlines does bring something new to discuss to the fore and I think was an excellent find and most interresting...so why not lets discuss that aye?

as for Take it easier? That's good advice. I'd practice what you preach here, because I think you're getting the wrong end of the stick and possibly a little frustrated...again.

Nice and friendly like.

 

[Anonymous]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS!!!!!!

sorry, it's just when you headed your post "Hook"...I thought you were addressing me.

Whenever I quote someone I tend to whack their name at the top of my post, it just seems more personable, even if I then go off on a tangent about the chances of Andy Johnson signing an extension to his contract at Palace.

I had no idea we were having a row mate, and I'm afraid I can't be arsed to read the previous few pages to see why you're upset.

I really wouldn't let it stress you though, dude.

 

[Anonymous]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS!!!!!!

I had no idea we were having a row mate, and I'm afraid I can't be arsed to read the previous few pages to see why you're upset.

I really wouldn't let it stress you though, dude.

Are we? Sorry, did I miss something?

I'm not upset, I can't see how or were you got the idea I was upset from... I think you seem to be getting your wires crossed again mate. Chill, it's only a message board. Once again, you ought to heed your own advice there mate.

Oh wait, at a guess, I think I see what you're doing. Is this an example of how people can be misinterpreted? An example of how Moore manipulates the information he gets to his own ends?

Very clever if it is mate...you had me completely confused for a minute there. I was thinking "aye? Upset? rows? Where? Conners has known me near enough three long years on this message board...what's he on about?"

But I see what you're doing now. At least I hope that's what you're doing because otherwise I've no idea what you're talking about....

Yes, I'd imagine Moore does something much the same...like Bashir was accused of doing when he interviewed Michael Jackson.

 

[Anonymous]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS!!!!!!

Are we? Sorry, did I miss something?

I'm not upset, I can't see how or were you got the idea I was upset from... I think you seem to be getting your wires crossed again mate. Chill, it's only a message board. Once again, you ought to heed your own advice there mate.

Oh wait, at a guess, I think I see what you're doing. Is this an example of how people can be misinterpreted? An example of how Moore manipulates the information he gets to his own ends?

Very clever if it is mate...you had me completely confused for a minute there. I was thinking "aye? Upset? rows? Where? Conners has known me near enough three long years on this message board...what's he on about?"

But I see what you're doing now. At least I hope that's what you're doing because otherwise I've no idea what you're talking about....

Yes, I'd imagine Moore does something much the same...like Bashir was accused of doing when he interviewed Michael Jackson.

Nah, I'm not clever enough to think of replying in a "giving an example of Michael Moore techniques" stylee.

So I appreciate that you've made clear you're not annoyed, but if for example you were annoyed, I understand it would be because you felt my points about Moore and Heston had been made before and didn't address what you were saying?

If so then, erm, soz man.

 

[Anonymous]

Re: FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS!!!!!!

Nah, I'm not clever enough to think of replying in a "giving an example of Michael Moore techniques" stylee.

So I appreciate that you've made clear you're not annoyed, but if for example you were annoyed, I understand it would be because you felt my points about Moore and Heston had been made before and didn't address what you were saying?

If so then, erm, soz man.

oh right. No, not annoyed, and apology accepted. Such is the internet aye?

Still, I think even if you didn't mean that as an example, I think its a good one, aye? So it wasn't all futile

 

[Anonymous]

Currently doing the rounds on the Net, highlighting the dichotomies of the right wing mindset:

It is very tough to be a Republican in 2004 because somehow
you have to believe concurrently that:

1. Jesus loves you, but shares your deep hatred of
homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.

2. The United States should get out of the United Nations,
but our highest national priority is enforcing U. N.
resolutions against Iraq.

3."Standing Tall for America" means firing your workers and
moving their jobs to India.

4. A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own
body, but multi-national corporations can make decisions
affecting all humankind without regulation.

5. Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless
you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and
you need our prayers for your recovery.

6. The best way to improve military morale is to praise the
troops in speeches, while slashing veterans' benefits and
combat pay.

7. Group sex and drug use are degenerate sins, unless you
some day run for governor of California as a Republican.

8. If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have
sex.

9. A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our long-time
allies, but then demand their cooperation and money.

10. HMOs and insurance companies make profits and have the
interest of the public at heart.

11. Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy.
Providing health care to all Americans is socialism.

12. Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk
science, but creationism should be taught in schools.

13. A president lying about an extramarital affair is an
impeachable offense. A president lying about WMD existence,
to enlist support for an unprovoked, undeclared war and
occupation, in which thousands of soldiers and civilians die,
is, somehow, solid "defense" policy in a "War against
Terrorism".

14. Government should limit itself to the powers named in the
Constitution, which should include "banning gay marriages and
censoring the Internet".

15. The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle
trades, but George Bush's Harken Oil stock trade should be
sealed in his Daddy's library, and is none of our business.

16. What Bill Clinton or John Kerry did in the 1960s was of
vital national interest but what Bush did in the '80s is
irrelevant.

17. Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is
communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a
"spirit of international harmony".

18. Affirmative Action is wrong, but it is OK for your Daddy
and his friends (here and in Saudi Arabia) to get you to
graduate from Yale without studying much, to dodge the draft
in the Texas Air National Guard, to bail out your company
Harken Oil and the Texas Rangers, to
get the Governorship of Texas and then to have the Supreme
Court appoint you President of the USA.

19. You are a conservative, but it is OK to spend like there
is no tomorrow and run up deficits that your grandchildren
will have to pay, while at the same refunding as much tax
money as possible to your campaign supporters.

20. "Support our troops", "liberate Iraq", "Gung Ho!"... but don't ask me or mine to put ourselves in harms way by volunteering for military service and actively participating in the noble crusade against "the jihadists.”

 

[Anonymous]

Shootin' Fish In A Barrel...

What else can I say? Don't forget to check out Moore's site (link below), and watch the video.

BBC News Online: Moore embarrasses new CIA chief
Thursday, 12 August, 2004

US Congressman Porter Goss, nominated to be the new director of the CIA, may be talking himself out of the job, according to film-maker Michael Moore.

Moore, who directed the film Fahrenheit 9/11, has released an interview with Mr Goss in which he says he lacks the qualifications for the top spy post.

"I couldn't get a job with CIA today. I am not qualified," Mr Goss told Moore's production company in March.

The White House has dismissed the interview as "ridiculous hearsay".

The interview did not make it into the final edit of the film, which criticises President George W Bush's policy on Iraq.

But following Mr Goss's nomination by the president, Moore has released the transcript and video excerpt on his website.

"I don't have the language skills. I, you know, my language skills were romance languages and stuff. We're looking for Arabists today. I don't have the cultural background probably," Mr Goss says on the video.

"And I certainly don't have the technical skills, as my children remind me every day: 'Dad, you got to get better on your computer.'

"So, the things that you need to have, I don't have."

...

http://www.michaelmoore.com/