Out of another thread on Micheal Moore, I got tired of one side saying: It's all lies! And the other side claiming that it isn't.

Conservatives have had a long time with this movie, so that we can stop arguing about what in it is fact and what is fiction can we please present the arguments here and reach consensus?


1) What is definitly NOT true in F-9/11? (Please give sources and REAL arguments)

2) What may or may not be true?

3) What is absolutely true? (as above, sources)


pick any of these and present items for discussion. After your post be sure to answer:


4) How does this item of information change the statement of the movie as a whole?

Below is the famous "Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 911" by David Kopel at the Independence Institute. In true Moore fashion I have listed all the reasons with no evidence backing the list. If you desire such evidence because you can not read what is obivous to conservatives then look at David Kopel web site: www.davekopel.org.

To answer the questions before the list:

1. What is definitly NOT true in F-9/11? (Please give sources and REAL arguments)
   
   What is listed below. Some are not 'real' arguments such as 1 or 10. Others are real arguments such as 4 or 16.
   
   
2. What may or may not be true?
   
   See below.
   
   
3. What is absolutely true? (as above, sources)
   
   See below, verify with web site. If discussion ensues to particular items on the list I will full discuss the item in ites entirity.
   
   
4. How does this item of information change the statement of the movie as a whole?
   
   It shows that the message can not be trusted when the facts are in correct. What message does Morre try to show by lying his way through the movie? That it is okay to lie as long as you prove your point? That seems rather childish to me. Let the facts speak, don't speak for the facts.

And now on to the list (yes i am going for the longest post ever posted):

Please review this link for further information: "Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 911" by David Kopel, Independence Institute

Not another Michelin Tires thread. I have some advice for you yehoshua, it's pointless. Everyone of those points in deceits can be rebuted. This has been buried into the ground. The movie was factually correct (exept for a certian newspaper scene). It decieve's by portraying half-truths. For instance the movie never actually stated that Gore was celebrating victory, it only give's the viewer the impression of it. That's why the web-site is called "Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 911". It deceive's people but is factually correct. Another example is the "pipeline" that was going to be built through Afghanistan. It leaves you with the impression that it was Bush who planned the pipeline without actually saying "Bush planned this". Instead it simply state "while Bush was governer the Taliban was invited to Texas". When in fact it was a company that had nothing to do with Bush that arranged the meeting. Another example is abou the Saudi's being flown out. It's leave's you with the impression that they recieved special attention from Bush without actually saying "Bush" but "the administration". The Saudi's didn't actually fly out until the ban was lifted and the authorization never went higher than Clark. Clark is actually in "the administration" and he publicly stated "it never went higher than me" yet the movie leaves you with the impression that Bush gave them special treatment without actually stating it.

It's a simple formula actually.

Ive been married for 20 years.
I cheated on my wife after 20 years of being married.


















Ive been married for 20 years.
(we stopped seeing each other for years and were in the process of divorce)
I cheated on my wife after 20 years of being married.


The first is factually correct, but the impression it leave's is far different from the whole story.

Then I guess the debate turns to whether or not deceiving people is factual? To deceive a person is to cause to accept what is true or valid that which is false or invalid. Which is what Moore does, therefore nothing is factual in his movie because nothing is true or valid. If facts are presented in a manner that is not factually valid, then that fact is not truthful nor can it be believed as factual.

For example: an invalid driver licenses. It is a driver licences, it says driver licences it looks like a real license, but the licences is invalid because it was not issued by the government. I can use the invalid license and full many people, but that does not mean I am giving them a truthful document.

Right, but I could argue that the impression is up to the viewer. If you believed Gore was celebrating his election win then that is your perception because it never actually stated that. It simply showed Gore with the commentary "as if a miracle happened". So it's up to the viewer to percieve what is actually taking place. It never says he was celebrating his victory in the election, so I may look at it and say, ok he is celebrating the fact that election day is about to come.

I agree with you, but you see how it can be rebuted.

I posted too quickly, I edit to include my driver's license example, so here it is again.

For example: an invalid driver licenses. It is a driver licences, it says driver licences it looks like a real license, but the licences is invalid because it was not issued by the government. I can use the invalid license and full many people, but that does not mean I am giving them a truthful or factual accurate document.

What i like is how everybody either jumped to bash, or not bash the film in relation to fact. If there exists the lies, then what is the truth in the movie. What i got from it generally is there is more then meets the eyes in respects to terrorism and the bush family, for instance the whole bin laden family and so on. It made its point on how unclear much of the WOT is and the whole iraq quagmire. If you support or dont support bush in terms of high degrees this movie really went big for sure. SO what is the truth in such then??? i guess that would be the new question as it stands. I dont see anything wrong with such, and i know the bush admin has been very active in making that not come to light, either good or bad, they are trying to make sure you cannot obtain such, this is known fact, such as in that one part of the movie with the edited name and all. Sure such fact can be applied to meat agendas politically, but in light of what is going on in the world, and how things turned out, i would like to have fact, and from this admin and or the movie, its hard to get any of that really, that is fact, so i guess he is bad for such, then so is the admin, or are we reaching relativity again in human reality or perception, darn that is annoying.

4) How does this item of information change the statement of the movie as a whole?
I found an article by a Dr. Kelton Rhoades. That was an amazing read. I don't know the political leanings of the good doctor, but its decent Vegas odds that he's not a neo-con.
He states a lot of things concerning the effect of the film on the 2004 election.
I figured that it addresses the fourth question better than most, though it may have needed its own thread, but I'm sick today...hence not enough energy for that.



Link

Deceiving people???????? You've got to be kidding me!! We have soldiers getting killed on a daily basis for what ?? WMD, freeing the Iraqi people, democracy in the Middle-East?(which is it?). It just really amazing that we are focusing on a film-maker like Michael Moore who is giving us his view on what's happening in America
and people act like he's Satan's son. But we have a President who keeps changing his reasoning for invading Iraq (DECEIT), can't admit he's made a mistake (LIE),
but he's the greatest thing since Moses.

If Moore gave a film praising Bush, this thread wouldn't exist. He's giving his point of view and thats all. Don't bash Moore because he's not giving away money to war profiteers like Harliburton.

Moore is decieving people to fit his propaganda. How do I know this? Because it was Clark that gave him alot of the information. In other words, he knew that it was decieving but he did it anyway.

Take a visit to this website. It lay's it out, but of course you can deny it give's the viewer the wrong impression. Though every person I know that watched it asked me "did you know Bush did this" and my usual responce "uh, no he didn't". Then they would argue with me then I would simply show them the information.

Then again Moore is out of touch with reality, so maybe he just doesn't realize he's up in the clouds.



Remember the big surprise that Disney would not distribute it?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?ObjectID=3565069



MSNBC


http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/...Date=2004-04-14



http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39723




Moore may have covered his rear for most of the movie but he forgot to do the same in his letters.

http://www.pcsympathy.com/article315.html



Now, the only way he knew this information was from Clark.

http://www.hillnews.com/news/052604/clarke.aspx



Secondly the flights were only authorized after the ban lifted. The movie is a propoganda spewing misinformation reel and he knew it. Also they were interrogated by the FBI.

http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-346.html



Yea, MM just want's to know the truth, and speaks the truth, ive got some ocean side property in Kansas to sell....



Im glad for him though, he drove away moderate's and independents from the Democratic party this year and made a ton of . Pure genius, doing the Republicans a favor by bringing in voters while making money at the same time.

I know I'm risking a EDITED TO REMOVE PROFANITY-slap about one liners, but Moore has already done all the research, and cited all his sources.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films/f9...index.php?id=16

Yea, I know what Moore has done. If you would refer to my first post, it's a pack of lies based on half-truths. This has allready been explained. I can show you half of the story and it still be factually correct. I can use sweeping statement's such as "the administration" or "while Bush was a Texas governer" to cover my read so it's "factually" correct.

All you have to do is visit this website and scroll down to the table of contents.

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-D...renheit-911.htm

It is in this research that Michael Moore is deceitful. Only giving half truths and passing it off as fact is a lie in and of itself. It doesn't matter any amount of research you do, if you stop the research at the part that contradicts your theory, and does not help your argument you are being deceitful. And if the facts are out their and are honest, then why be deceitful? Why cover them up?

As an example, Moore shows the anti-Bush protest that took place in Washington, D.C., on the day of Bush’s inauguration. According to Moore, "No President had ever witnessed such a thing on his inauguration day." However if Moore had done his research, or had used the research he had done he would have known that Richard Nixon had protests at his inauguration in 1969 and 1973. Furthermore, Moore would have also learned that Nixon had 60,000 protesters in 1973 compared to Bush's 20,000 protesters for Bush in 2001. The real comparison will be if Bush's 2005 inauguration will have more protesters then Nixon. Unless Moore meant, "no President had ever witnessed such a thing on his inauguration day as being the only President to have an inauguration in 2001." But I am sure that Moore was discussing the protester.

How can one trust bad research? I mean who trust the intelligents community after all we have been through with them? Does that mean that they can get better? Could the new Fahrenheit be more accurate then the first? Let's hope so.