Laugh at Liberals

257 Responses to “MICHAEL MOORE IS A TRAITOR”

1. herb Says: July 6th, 2004 at 2:30 pm

   What war on terror? Mr Bush left the war on terror far behind last year when he decided to divert resources from the hunt for bin Laden so that he could take care of his father’s “unfinished” business in Iraq. As for calling Michael Moore a traitor, 200+ years ago you would have been calling people like Thomas Paine a traitor because he criticized the people who ran the country. I don’t know about your world but in mine alleigence is sworn to the country, not the man who happens to be in charge. Him, you can attack (verbally) at will if you think what he has done is not in the best interest of the country. As far as I know, the only countries where you can’t disagree with the man at the top are those run by men like Saddam or Hitler.

2. Emory Says: July 7th, 2004 at 3:14 am

   What resources were diverted from Afghanistan to Iraq?

3. herb Says: July 8th, 2004 at 12:50 am

   Well, let’s see. Since they are extending the stays of most of the soldiers over there and are recalling to active duty those soldiers who have served their time but but do have reserve stqtus as part of their discharge I would say we are running a tad short of manpower. Since we haven’t caught bin Laden and the Taliban are still causing problems in Afghanistan maybe some of those troops in Iraq could have done better stationed in Afghanistan? Then there is the money. Maybe I am wrong but considering what is being spent to rebuild Iraq could have been put to better use rebuilding Afghanistan and weaning the outlying peoples away from the warlords that caquse so much trouble to the central government. I know it’s a toss up because the warlord culture is usually a hard one to break and it’s possible no amount of money could do it but would rather have seen the money spent on trying to unify a country that sincerely appreciates us and could make a stable ally. Of course all those destitute people at Haliburton surely appreciate all the aid we have given them.

4. zoot potatoe Says: July 9th, 2004 at 7:05 pm

   lol… F9/11 isn’t the only piece of propaganda that’s spreading around… there’s also george w. bush’s campaing commercials…

   i never got how this movie made michael a traitor. it’s obviously a slapped on title made by conservatives. It’s not a coincidence almost all conservatives hate it while all liberals love it…

   thank goodness for the FREEDOM OF SPEECH. really, though, i’m surprised of the title “traitor”… all because he doesnt’ support the president (like half of america) means he’s a traitor? If Joe Doe someone made a movie against Clinton when he was bombing Iraq, would conservatives call him a traitor? no. they wouldn’t. this is sad…

5. republican Says: July 13th, 2004 at 3:09 am

   Perhaps herb and zoot potatoe (with these names who could even have the audacity to leave a comment?) should re-read the article. Michael Moore is not named a traitor for disagreeing with the President of the United States (a.k.a. the man who was officially elected into office by the Electoral College) as perhaps half of America allegedly seems to (we’ll soon find out), but rather he is named a traitor for promoting hate against America. I am amazed by how much liberals admire a man who encourages others to hate their own country (one to which they supposedly swear allegiance to “in their world”). And how is it that comment number ‘3’ fails to mention Michael Moore even once, which is what the article was originally about. Now I understand why this site is called “Laugh at Liberals”.

6. JGK Says: July 14th, 2004 at 5:04 am

   It wouldn’t have even occurred to me that comment 3’s “failure” to mention Michael Moore even once is worth noting. If what started out as comments about Michael Moore leads to discussion of the content of his film, then you’ve got a real discussion. If after seeing F911 you just want to shoot the messenger and focus criticism on Michael Moore, you’ve missed the point of his movie, which isn’t about him. Sure, the movie lets you know Michael Moore’s opinions, and you might agree and you might not, but it also lets you know a lot of facts that are disturbing and unfortunately not disputable. F911 is an opinion piece, and therefore criticized for not really being a “documentary.” Well, whatever you want to call this film, too bad for this country that it is not a work of fiction, which is hard for some people to swallow. The biggest success of Michael Moore and F911 is that he has gotten so many people to ask questions and find out more. It’s a good thing for the discussion to become about the content of the film, not the man who made it.

7. maritnjb Says: July 15th, 2004 at 3:45 pm

   for disputable facts see hitchens article…whats funny is there are liberals in the liberal press saying this movie is a bunch of lies…and michael moore can’t decide himself if this is a documentary or a movie…two very different types of film…

8. Ben Says: July 16th, 2004 at 6:12 am

   “republican”, you fool - michael moooore’s message isn’t for you to hate your own country, it’s for you to understand what’s going on in the country, and how it’s wrong. Moreover, he’s really trying to show any openminded person (aka liberal) how much of a crackcase G.W.B. is. Go read your Drudge Reports, republican.

9. herb Says: July 17th, 2004 at 5:05 pm

   Ben, you have to realize that “republican” can’t seem to follow a coherant chain of thought or else he might have realized that comment 3 was a reply to comment 2 and fits in perfectly. Also, like many among the great unwashed he resorts to personal cracks, herb is my real name btw, rather than well reasoned discussion. As for Mr Moore preaching hate America I seriously doubt it unless you identify America totally with the man in charge. One can love one’s country but hate what she does because of the man at the wheel. As i said before, the only countries I know where you had to be faithful to the man in charge were those run by dictators, whether of the right or left.

10. Carlos Says: July 22nd, 2004 at 7:02 pm

    As a non-american I’ve been following the discussions about Fahrenheit 9/11 with great interest. What really amuses me is that all republican websites accuse Moore of being a traitor because of the fact he’s telling “nothing but lies” in his film. So far I haven’t found a single website questioning this so called lies or proving these lies are wrong…

11. reg Says: July 22nd, 2004 at 10:43 pm

    Carlos,

    I’m trying real hard not to laugh at your post. You’re basically saying that you do not know how, or refuse to learn how, to use an internet search engine. Ok, with that said, here is just one of many links that help you on your search.

    http://www.aim.org/
    aim_report/
    1802_0_4_0_C/’

    Others can also be provided.

12. Emory Says: July 23rd, 2004 at 2:14 am

    Re: #3, I disagree, Herb. Just because we haven’t caught bin Laden and the fact that operations continue in Afghanistan doesn’t translate into a need for more troops. If you’re aware of any reports of generals in the theater who have called for more troops in Afghanistan, please post the links. I’m of the opinion that more is not always the best solution. Most experts say that bin Laden is not in Afghanistan anyway.

13. herb Says: July 23rd, 2004 at 4:03 pm

    I am sure you do disagree Emory, and a lot more with you. Maybe more troops aren’t necessary in numbers but what about the fact that the only way the current manpower requirements are being met is with extended tours of duty? What happens if we should suddenly need manppower elsewhere? How about the governors’ latest cry that they have no manpower left to handle emergency situations on the homefront, jobs normally handled by the Guard? What does this do for future recruitment in both the active duty forces and the Guard? What does it do to the current grunt in the field and his mindset and stress level?

14. Mike Roberts Says: July 30th, 2004 at 2:35 pm

    Think of me as a non-partisan citizen.

    I worry about my nation. I have recently watched Moore’s Film and I was deeply shocked. I’ve always known the film is liberal propaganda ([Liberals] if you don’t believe me, look propaganda up in the dictionary).

    Yes, F911 is a mix of opinion, speculation and fact. Even if we discounted the speculation and opinions of Moore we are still left, nonetheless, with a chilling realisation of how our nation is being run.

    As I said above, I am fully aware that the film in propaganda, and with that in mind I have done my best to hear the “other side” of the story. All I have managed to find are pages like this one. Moore’s polar opposites pointing fingers and calling names. Is this really you’re argument? Vote for Bush because “Kerry is a fairy”? Kerry and Moore are traitors?

    Admittedly, I have found a number of sites that pick holes in some of Moore’s reasoning, especially how he connects the Bushes to the Bin-Ladens (which I don’t find particularly relevant in any case)

    I actually believe that Moore’s film has done more good than harm when screened in other nations (especially when screened in nations that severely dislike the USA) These are nations that blame all citizens for unpopular US foreign policy. The film shows that the decisions of the US government do not reflect every citizen. (Only my opinion)

    All I want to know is that our elected officials are running our nation wisely, in our interest. (The _undisputed_ facts in Moore’s film show that Bush has failed) Since doing my own (balanced — I wouldn’t be here otherwise) research I am left with the opinion that Bush failed these objectives and I think it’s time he has been replaced. I would welcome informed arguments saying otherwise.

    Republicans (Not every republican, mainly those who like to “Laugh at Liberals”): You are doing yourselves no favors right now. Many people are attacking your party with facts, and you are responding with the political equivalent of the “Your mother” comeback. If Moore, the press, or the liberals are lying, PROVE the are wrong with facts. If Moore’s film is simply, as you put it, “Lie after Lie” why hasn’t Moore been served with a Libel suit? Giving a childish response to intelligent argument only results in making you look foolish.

    Come November 2, I will vote for whoever I feel will do the best job. Give me a _real_ reason to vote for Bush

15. Grady Philpott Says: July 30th, 2004 at 10:39 pm

    Michael Moore is a traitor.
    John Kerry is a traitor.
    Anyone who supports John Kerry is a traitor.
    The Democrat Party is the American Communist Party.

16. Abel Gallardo Says: August 1st, 2004 at 10:59 am

    It’s funny you should mention Communism because it appears that the Communist Party of America has chosen their favorite candidate. Guess who? Check it out, the url is ‘http://www.cpusa.org/’. One thing is for certain, the Communists sure hate Bush.

17. zack Says: August 1st, 2004 at 2:28 pm

    Mike: This site is first and foremost about fun. We are all Americans. The fact that we can banter back and forth makes this a great country. When it gets sad is when people begin to make-up stories detrimental to The Commander In Chief during a time of war and call them documentaries for the sake of making money. People like Moore are more concerned about making money than the success of this war. We are in it. If you must, wait till our troops come home, then tell your lies. Liberals tend to do this more than conservatives. Linda Ronstadt says that she hates it when she gets up to perform and finds out that there is a fundamental Christian or a Republican in the audience. Imagine for a moment that a performer gets up and says that he/she hates it when they get up to perform and finds out that there is a homosexual or Muslim in the audience. That person would be prosecuted! The conservatives in Hollywood can’t speak out for the same fear! Yet, it’s the liberals who want to cuss and spew hate rhetoric about our President then run and hide behind “Freedom of Speech”. How did a President who had been in office a little over 7 months total, fail on 911? Forget partisanship for a minutes and think about that. The previous president ignored “trial-runs” on numerous occasions. Remember, they DID bomb the World Trade Center once! Suppose the first attack had been successful? Has anyone asked that? The terrorists failed, regrouped, when back to the drawing-boards and came up with a better plan while Clinton sat there and did nothing about that attack! Nobody is really thinking about that. But because the Bush administration didn’t comb through 100’s of thousands of pieces of evidence in 7 months to see it coming….it’s he failed!!!??? Michael Moore has done a great injustice to this country on more levels than just that. We are actually at a point in this society to where we don’t even know what a lie is. If I tell you that my car is in the parking lot, then I go outside to leave my office only to find that someone has stolen my car….does that mean I lied? The best Intel in the world, American, British and even Russian, who, BTW, didn’t even want us to go in to Iraq, told the President that the WMD were there. What would YOU have done? Better yet, what would Kerry or any other President have done? We later found out that the UN was full of countries who were making billions under the table from Iraq and would NEVER have voted to go into Iraq, no matter what Saddam did. Congress agreed and voted to give the President the power to use military force ANYWAY HE SAW FIT. Remember all of that? Kerry doesn’t. He should at least be honest about that. For the record, there is no way that, if politics were removed, anybody would believe that all three Intel services are wrong about it. The WMD’s ARE there, OR they have been taken to another country! Any honest person, would admit that.

18. zack Says: August 1st, 2004 at 2:38 pm

    Just curious. How does every posting here define a traitor? How do you define a lie? Do you side with the UN over the US government when you disagree with the US government? How far does your loyalty to your country go?

19. JGK Says: August 2nd, 2004 at 12:52 pm

    About comment 14, very well put, Mike. I also found this site by searching the internet for information from “the other side.” Now about comment 15, there’s a contrast in the thoughtfulness that went into a post. Amazing you put those statements out there, Grady, AFTER reading what Mike just wrote in 14. There sure is a lot of namecalling and nagativity coming from the Repulicans in response to F9/11. I was glad a couscious effort was made at the DNC to avoid Bush-bashing. Of course, the Democrats already have Michael Moore and many others doing that for them. Hearing Jimmy Carter’s speech at the DNC echoing much of the content of F9/11, I find it now really hard to take seriously those that continue to call the film a pack of lies. At a personal level, while I appreciate that Michael Moore’s film has gotten so many Americans to talk politics and ask questions, I think Michael Moore can be smug, sarcastic, and obnoxious. Jimmy Carter, on the other hand, is respected around the world as a great humanitarian. He personifies decency. Without mentioning Bush, he gave one of the most powerful speeches against our current president’s policies and style of leadership. If you didn’t hear the speech, it’s at dems2004.org/site/
    apps/nl/
    content3.asp?
    c=luI2LaPYG&b
    =130840&ct=158731

20. Sara Says: August 4th, 2004 at 12:56 am

    Well… Of course some people here seem not to really understand what a propaganda movie is. There surely were many manipulations that Moore did to prove his point. The plain facts would not make anyone shock because there was hardly any great revelation or discovary throwout the whole movie. He worked more on the impressions that he wanted to make than on presenting the facts and building any good arguments to support them, and his conspiracy theories where just childish! If you want some good incite on these manipulations, lies and twisted facts you can check out: http://www.moorelies.com or http://www.mooreexposed.com
    These have detailed arguments about how he used manipulative methods to make the audience agree with him while the plain facts would have proved nothing at all.

    When I personally saw F9/11 a few things caught my attention. Since I just saw the movie I had no possibility to say whether what he said was true or not, but I just assumed that he told the truth and nothing but the truth and he just made the speculations based on what he saw without any evil intentions.

    Then I decided to assume what would I have thought if I would have come upon the information that he came upon and I decided to look at the info that he gave through my own eyes, and I came to the conclusion that as I said there was hardly anything troubling and extraordinary in what he found.

    I give you some examples. The most vivid one that I can tell you now was what he said about the gas line that was going to be built in Afghanistan. He speculated that Bush only started the war to build a gas line there. Well, that’s his speculation since the fact that a treaty to build a gas line was signed by Hammed Karzai after the war absolutely doesn’t follow the conclusion that this was the only reason for war. We only conclude that if the war in Afghanestan would have produced no positive results for anyone except the people who wanted to build the pipe there. This is not true. The people of Afghanestan now are much better off than they were under Taliban. The country is gradually becoming better and better. As I told in another message on this blog before I am an Iranian. My country is right next to Iraq and Afghanistan. We had loads of Afghan refugees who simply couldn’t live in their native land the life there was unbearable. But now they are going back to their homeland and they are very happy about the changes. So now if in addition some gas line would be built how does it make the war in Afghanistan unjust?

    Another thing is that Michael Moore is absolutely soaked in his leftist ideology which considers any attempt to make profit sound and look like a crime no matter how justly it has been conducted or how many other people other than the business men involved have benefited from it. Again I can bring the gas pipe agreement as an example. What harm a gas pipe passing through Afghanistan can cause to Afghan people? Their country has no natural resources, no industries, no great agriculture, basically no income to fill their treasury! Their strategic location is the only card they can play. Does Moore actually think that building a gas pipe is a favor that Afghanistan is doing to the gas companies? They are doing business for God sack and they are going to get money which they so badly need out of it too!

    I also noticed that Moore was making Saddam’s Iraq look like a peaceful and problem-less place. Well, we all know that it was not like that! What ever the reasons of attacking Iraq might have been in Michael Moore’s imagination I don’t think there would be any honest person that would deny that Saddam Hussein was a blood-thirsty tyrant who had committed many crimes against humanity and it is great that he is gone for good! Now if again some companies now can go to free Iraq and do business there it is only great and not just for them, but for the Iraqi people too, because the presence of foreign companies will make sure first of all that law and order will be restored soon since you can not do business in a chaotic and lawless environment and secondly it is good because they will bring jobs and higher standards of life to Iraq. To be honest with you there is no country amongst the undeveloped nations who wouldn’t want to have as much investments as possible coming to their land! It will boost the economy and after a while the standards will rise and people will become more financially strong. So Moore mentioned that the corporations are rushing into newly liberated Iraq, so what?! Hardly a revelation and not a bad news at all, unless either you are a communist or you are clueless about economics and you will just hear Moore’s ominous tone of voice and scary music and start to think: “Gee! So that’s why we went to war! To have some people exploit the Iraqi people…!”

    Another example was about having the Saudis out of America right after 9/11. Well, later on I read on numerous websites that actually Saudis went out much later than what Moore had us believed and those who could have been of any help where already investigated. But at the very first moment when I saw that in the movie it came to my head that actually this was a very wise decision. These people could have gotten killed because of a massive hatred towards any person from the Middle East on those days. My own sister who lives in New Jersey got attacked by some angry people who suddenly started to throw tomatoes at her because she has Middle Eastern features and I assure you she is very westernized and doesn’t wear anything that indicates that she is a Muslim. So imagine how would the Bin Laden family must have felt. What if one of them would have become subject to a hate crime? Or the fact that Saudi embassy is so heavily guarded is nothing surprising and it doesn’t lead to any of the phony conclusions that Moore was making. It is just common sense! After the terrorist attacks some ignorant people might cause some harm to that building and to people inside it and that would lead to an international scandal.

    Well… other than those points mentioned above I didn’t like Moore’s approach in vandalizing the character of those whom he doesn’t like. Those pictures of Bush, Ashcroft and other people who was recorded on camera before the actual report or interview started was simply a childish mockery and using these kinds of methods of bulling people are not worthy of being used in any movie or “documentary’ with an intelligent message. Well you chose to call it political satire, but I found them out of contexts with the tone and flow of the rest of the movie which was trying to look very serious and intelligent! Bad taste; that’s all!

    After all I found this move (lies or no lies) not a shocking revelation, but Moore’s own point of view (as his supporters try to emphasize so much) which is paranoid, biased, coming from a silly, unintelligent, outdated, and childish world-view, totally amerced in communist ideology; preoccupied with “corporate conspiracies” and other childish notions, and demonstrated by childish and unintelligent and quite tasteless means and methods! I think it was not a documentary; it was a tantrum!

21. Chris Kelley Says: August 4th, 2004 at 8:46 am

    did you pay to see the movie?

22. Chris Kelley Says: August 4th, 2004 at 8:55 am

    If you did, thanks for contributing to an 80 million dollar contribution to the Democrats for 2004! If you didn’t pay to watch it, you’re a crook. If you saw and were scared, you’re a Republican.

23. Andrew Says: August 6th, 2004 at 5:25 pm

    Buck Evinger, You sound more like a Nazi than an American.

24. Ted Phillips Says: August 21st, 2004 at 6:25 am

    To be honest, I don’t care about the shakey business links between bush and bin laden and a lot of the other nonsense in the film. What bothers me the most is we were lied to by our leader. I cannot support a candidate who is more concerned with his personal agenda than that of the nation.

    To quote David Sirota and Christy Harvey:

    In his March 17, 2003 address preparing America for the Iraq invasion, President Bush stated unequivocally that there was an Iraq-al Qaeda nexus and that there was “no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”

    In the context of what we now know the White House knew at the time, Bush was deliberately dishonest. The intelligence community repeatedly told the White House there were many deep cracks in its case for war. The president’s willingness to ignore such warnings and make these unequivocal statements proves the administration was intentionally painting a black-and-white picture when it knew the facts merited only gray at best.

    That has meant severe consequences for all Americans. Financially, U.S. taxpayers have shelled out more than $166 billion for the Iraq war, and more will soon be needed. Geopolitically, our country is more isolated from allies than ever, with anti-Americanism on the rise throughout the globe.

    And we are less secure. A recent U.S. Army War College report says “the invasion of Iraq was a diversion from the more narrow focus on defeating al Qaeda.” U.N. envoy Lakhdar Brahimi put it this way: “The war in Iraq was useless, it caused more problems than it solved, and it brought in terrorism.”

    These statements are borne out by the facts: The International Institute of Strategic Studies in London reports al Qaeda is now 18,000 strong, with many new recruits joining as a result of the war in Iraq. Not coincidentally, the White House recently said the American homeland faces an imminent threat of a terrorist attack from a still-active al Qaeda operation in Afghanistan. Yet, the administration actually moved special forces out of Afghanistan in 2002 to prepare for an invasion of Iraq. Because of this, we face the absurd situation whereby we have no more than 20,000 troops in Afghanistan hunting down those who directly threaten us, yet have 140,000 troops in Iraq—a country that was not a serious menace before invasion.

    Of course, it is those troops who have it the worst. Our men and women in uniform are bogged down in a quagmire, forced to lay down life and limb for a lie.

    To be sure, neoconservative pundits and Bush administration hawks will continue to blame anyone but the White House for these deceptions. They also will say intelligence gave a bit of credence to some of the pre-war claims, and that is certainly true.

    But nothing can negate the clear proof that President Bush and other administration official officials vastly overstated the intelligence they were given. They engaged in a calculated and well-coordinated effort to turn a war of choice in Iraq into a perceived war of imminent necessity.

    And we are all left paying the price.

25. John Berger Says: August 24th, 2004 at 6:25 pm

    Fahrenheit 9/11 is astounding. Not so much as a film - although it is cunning and moving - but as an event. Most commentators try to dismiss the event and disparage the film. We will see why later.

    The artists on the Cannes film festival jury apparently voted unanimously to award Michael Moore’s film the Palme d’Or. Since then it has touched many millions across the world. In the US, its box-office takings for the first six weeks amounted to more than $100m, which is, astoundingly, about half of what Harry Potter made during a comparable period. Only the so-called opinion-makers in the media appear to have been put out by it.

    The film, considered as a political act, may be a historical landmark. Yet to have a sense of this, a certain perspective for the future is required. Living only close-up to the latest news, as most opinion-makers do, reduces one’s perspectives. The film is trying to make a small contribution towards the changing of world history. It is a work inspired by hope.

    What makes it an event is the fact that it is an effective and independent intervention into immediate world politics. Today it is rare for an artist to succeed in making such an intervention, and in interrupting the prepared, prevaricating statements of politicians. Its immediate aim is to make it less likely that President Bush will be re-elected next November.

    To denigrate this as propaganda is either naive or perverse, forgetting (deliberately?) what the last century taught us. Propaganda requires a permanent network of communication so that it can systematically stifle reflection with emotive or utopian slogans. Its pace is usually fast. Propaganda invariably serves the long-term interests of some elite.

    This single maverick movie is often reflectively slow and is not afraid of silence. It appeals to people to think for themselves and make connections. And it identifies with, and pleads for, those who are normally unlistened to. Making a strong case is not the same thing as saturating with propaganda. Fox TV does the latter; Michael Moore the former.

    Ever since the Greek tragedies, artists have, from time to time, asked themselves how they might influence ongoing political events. It’s a tricky question because two very different types of power are involved. Many theories of aesthetics and ethics revolve round this question. For those living under political tyrannies, art has frequently been a form of hidden resistance, and tyrants habitually look for ways to control art. All this, however, is in general terms and over a large terrain. Fahrenheit 9/11 is something different. It has succeeded in intervening in a political programme on the programme’s own ground.

    For this to happen a convergence of factors were needed. The Cannes award and the misjudged attempt to prevent the film being distributed played a significant part in creating the event.

    To point this out in no way implies that the film as such doesn’t deserve the attention it is receiving. It’s simply to remind ourselves that within the realm of the mass media, a breakthrough (a smashing down of the daily wall of lies and half-truths) is bound to be rare. And it is this rarity which has made the film exemplary. It is setting an example to millions - as if they’d been waiting for it.

    The film proposes that the White House and Pentagon were taken over in the first year of the millennium by a gang of thugs so that US power should henceforth serve the global interests of the corporations: a stark scenario which is closer to the truth than most nuanced editorials. Yet more important than the scenario is the way the movie speaks out. It demonstrates that - despite all the manipulative power of communications experts, lying presidential speeches and vapid press conferences - a single independent voice, pointing out certain home truths which countless Americans are already discovering for themselves, can break through the conspiracy of silence, the atmosphere of fear and the solitude of feeling politically impotent.

    It’s a movie that speaks of obstinate faraway desires in a period of disillusion. A movie that tells jokes while the band plays the apocalypse. A movie in which millions of Americans recognise themselves and the precise ways in which they are being cheated. A movie about surprises, mostly bad but some good, being discussed together. Fahrenheit 9/11 reminds the spectator that when courage is shared one can fight against the odds.

    In more than a thousand cinemas across the country, Michael Moore becomes with this film a people’s tribune. And what do we see? Bush is visibly a political cretin, as ignorant of the world as he is indifferent to it; while the tribune, informed by popular experience, acquires political credibility, not as a politician himself, but as the voice of the anger of a multitude and its will to resist.

    There is something else which is astounding. The aim of Fahrenheit 9/11 is to stop Bush fixing the next election as he fixed the last. Its focus is on the totally unjustified war in Iraq. Yet its conclusion is larger than either of these issues. It declares that a political economy which creates colossally increasing wealth surrounded by disastrously increasing poverty, needs - in order to survive - a continual war with some invented foreign enemy to maintain its own internal order and security. It requires ceaseless war.

    Thus, 15 years after the fall of communism, a decade after the declared end of history, one of the main theses of Marx’s interpretation of history again becomes a debating point and a possible explanation of the catastrophes being lived.

    It is always the poor who make the most sacrifices, Fahrenheit 9/11 announces quietly during its last minutes. For how much longer?

    There is no future for any civilisation anywhere in the world today which ignores this question. And this is why the film was made and became what it became. It’s a film that deeply wants America to survive.

26. Arouet Says: October 15th, 2004 at 11:54 pm

    RE: Michael Moore is a traitor. John Kerry is a traitor. etc.
    Your ignorance of what this country is about astounds me. Perhaps you would be happier under some type of dictatorship - in such regimes, anyone who disagrees with the autocracy is a traitor.

27. Adam Says: October 16th, 2004 at 3:46 am

    “Did you know that American citizens at the Republican National Convetion last night were wearing band-aids with Purple Hearts on them to mock veterans (i.e. Kerry) who were lightly wounded? I’m in a bunker in Mosul, Iraq, getting mortared daily, and I have to watch my countrymen wearing Purple Heart Band-aids and getting coverage on CNN, MSNBC, and FOX?

    Did you know that two nights ago, our combat support hospital took in two casualties from an IED (improvised explosive device, a road side bomb)? One kid had two broken legs, a broken arm, broken ribs, and a punctured lung. The other kid was trapped in the vehicle and burned to death. Have you ever seen a burnt human body? It’s a sight you won’t forget and the smell never leaves you.

    I wish I could reach out to those fine Americans at the Republican National Convention and make then see what I’ve seen; I would show them all of the wounds and injuries our surgeons, nurses, and medics have treated. American soldiers are dying over here, and those at the convention have the temerity to mock us? While the balloons drop and the banners wave, somebody’s son is taking fire, somebody’s daughter is crying for her mother on our operating room table, and somebody’s husband is lying cold in a “pouch, human remains.” Will that be enough to convince these model citizens to take off their Purple Heart Band-Aids?”

    This comment from a Veteran who served in Iraq.

28. jd Says: October 16th, 2004 at 2:20 pm

    Adam: old news but like most brain dead liberals you miss the point. Kerry exagerated his injuries to get out of Vietnam. That is an insult to the brave and dedicated vets who stayed and fought and died. Kerry manipulated the system to get out then uses his time there to say “vote for me”. He is the one who is insulting our servicemen and he is the one who deserves your scorn. Get your liberal head out of your liberal ass long enough to think about it.

29. Arouet Says: October 16th, 2004 at 3:50 pm

    Kerry was in Vietnam (and yes, I have read some of the hate-filled venom of the “not-very-swift vets” led by Nixon’s hatchet man O’Neill, so no lectures please).

    Meanwhile, this “warrior” President was not. He chose the tough path - Air National Guard. Back then, unlike now, it was a way out of Nam.

30. Emory Says: October 16th, 2004 at 4:16 pm

    Arouet, I went to the C-SPAN site and watched the inaugural meeting of the Swiftboat Veterans and concluded that they are sincere people who were truly hurt by John Kerry and genuinely do not believe Kerry would be a good president. I challenge anyone to watch the video and see for themselves the pain and angst the Switvets are experiencing.

31. kduey Says: October 16th, 2004 at 4:50 pm

    Kerry was injured facing the right direction on a battlefield. Bush was arrested for driving home drunk from a celeb party. Kerry could have gotten out, and he went. Then, coming home, he told a hard truth. I wrote a book that required me to interview 153 vets in 1973. Stories of atrocities ran through nearly ever combat vet’s memories. A number of them wept over things they had seen (or perhaps done themselves, though none admitted it to me, except one. He showed me his ear collection.) Two men spoke of killing women and children in free-fire zones and were soul-sick about it and other things they had seen and done. Kerry went, then he came home and he told the truth about a terrible war. If you have not read his whole testimony, you owe yourself the information. At 28, he acted his conscience twice, going to fight, then talking about the war to Congress, relaying the stories he had heard from hundreds of others. And, by the way, back then, I never heard Kerry’s name spoken. Not once. He was one of tens of thousands of voices against the war, many louder and more eloquent than his. Viet Nam cost me a cousin, two good friends and several high school friends. It left a scar on many others of my generation. The “crazy Viet Nam vet” had good reasons to lose his grip. He was asked to do things no one should ask or allow a soldier to do. He came home to a country that knew the war was bogus, a political exercise, doomed to fail–and knew his friends had died for nothing. I fear for the Iraq vets and am already hearing stories of atrocities outside the prisons. This is a tragic betrayal, a bad use of young men’s lives. There are a thousand things wrong with this war, the man leading it, the motivations behind it and the way it was sold to the public. But beyond all of that, the men fighting it are going to be damaged, some of them deeply, all of them forever. War is a failure of civilization, period. An avoidable war is a crime against civilization.

    Progressives, liberals, whatever you want to call us, we aren’t laughable. We are people who don’t feel bigger or smarter for having “kicked ass” in a basically unarmed country. We don’t think that a crying Iraqi child is “collateral damage”. We think she is a human child, whose parents are now dead, who will stumble through life as a result. We hate dictators who *aren’t* sitting on oil fields in strategic positions as much as those who are.

    And many of us know a guerilla civil war situation when we see it. Again.

    The soldiers are poor boys for the most part, fighting a rich man’s war. The profiteering of Halliburtan and the Carlyle group is transparent and ugly. The Bush family hs pulled this kind of thing for three generations. And you love them for it? Why?

    I understand perfectly why white men who make 10 million or more a year and bank offshore are republicans, though I don’t admire them for that kind of self-serving predation. What I can’t understand is the rest of you. Government has to be watched, you have to hold their feet to the fire, and we aren’t doing that. Why?

    Adam. Thank you for your service. I hope the war is better run soon. I am so sorry you have had to see things and do things that will be hard to live with. I will do my best to make your sacrifice worthwhile, to make sure that the politicians of both parties do right by you, and I will work to salvage some kind of victory for you and for the Iraqi people–not just a corporate earnings party and a clumsy retreat when the cash flow dries up.

32. Arouet Says: October 16th, 2004 at 4:56 pm

    Hello Emory,
    I have no doubt that some of these men seemed sincere, but over and over the charges they leveled have been refuted. Please see this site for an example. There are many other sites that do the same.

33. Arouet Says: October 16th, 2004 at 5:39 pm

    Hello Emory,
    I don’t doubt they seemed sincere, but their charges have been refuted by many sources, not just liberal ones.

34. JD Says: October 16th, 2004 at 5:52 pm

    Boy those liberal talking points just keep coming. I keep hearing the SBV’s have been discredited but funny, I haven’t heard how. Their story is entirely credible, unlike John “Christmas in Cambodia” Kerry’s. I challenge one of you liberals to present just one verifiable instance refuting even one of the SBV’s charges. Just one!

35. Emory Says: October 16th, 2004 at 5:56 pm

    Arouet, several in the democratic party and media have attacked the swiftboat vets. I’m not aware of any charges from the book that have been refuted.

36. Arouet Says: October 16th, 2004 at 6:05 pm

    Emory and JD,
    I have been trying to mention a good site, by URL, but it won’t seem to take this in the post, and I’m not sure why that is. Maybe it is a policy here.

37. JD Says: October 16th, 2004 at 6:15 pm

    Nice try Arouet but it doesn’t count. Just one and put it here where we can read it.

38. Adam Says: October 16th, 2004 at 6:21 pm

    Adam: old news but like most brain dead liberals you miss the point. Kerry exagerated his injuries to get out of Vietnam. That is an insult to the brave and dedicated vets who stayed and fought and died. Kerry manipulated the system to get out then uses his time there to say “vote for me”. He is the one who is insulting our servicemen and he is the one who deserves your scorn. Get your liberal head out of your liberal ass long enough to think about it.

    So what Kerry should be scorned because he didn’t give his LIFE for Vietnam? You’re an idiot and you don’t make any points that re worth arguing. You have no idea, no fucking clue what it’s like to serve in a time of war. You and other right-wing buddies can scream “kick their ass” all you want from your little computer desk, but the real heroes are the ones who are putting their lifes on the line for this country. Go watch a 10 year old boy get his limbs blow off by a scud missle, and atch his face as doctors try to salvage whatever they can of his leftover body, and then come talk to me about being a vet, because you don’t know.

39. Arouet Says: October 16th, 2004 at 6:38 pm

    Let me try again.

40. Adam Says: October 16th, 2004 at 6:39 pm

    The following is a quote from a Naval Doctor from the SBV site.

    “The story he told was different from what his crewmen had to say about that night. According to Kerry, they had been engaged in a fire fight, receiving small arms fire from on shore. He said that his injury resulted from this enemy action.

    Some of his crew confided that they did not receive any fire from shore, but that Kerry had fired a mortar round at close range to some rocks on shore.”

    So the claim is that Kerry fired a grenade at a rock? If you believe it, good for you, but I’m gonna stick with the notion that Kerry didn’t fire a grenade launcher at a “bunch of rocks on shore”.

41. Adam Says: October 16th, 2004 at 6:43 pm

    Nice site by the way Arouet.

42. Emory Says: October 16th, 2004 at 6:53 pm

    Hi Arouet, posts with links have to be approved to prevent spam attacks. It’s also better to make the link text short. Here’s Buck’s post about it.

43. Arouet Says: October 16th, 2004 at 7:02 pm

    Thank you very much for that information, Emory. I could have presented the arguments myself, citing the source naturally, but that would have made for a rather long post.

44. JD Says: October 16th, 2004 at 9:37 pm

    Adam if you think what you said proves anything, well, lets just say it is not enough for people who are interested in the truth.

45. someone Says: October 16th, 2004 at 10:17 pm

    “His movie, Fahrenheit 911, is an act of treason during a time of war.”

    Hey, we’re not at war anymore. Remember last year when Bush made his Mission Accomplished speech and said that the war was over? When he said, “major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.”? Oh wait…if the war’s over then why are our soldiers still over there and getting killed?

46. JD Says: October 16th, 2004 at 10:21 pm

    Someone: Bush never said the war was over, you did. In fact he said that there was much to be done. The major combat operations WERE over and have been over since then. Done fighting? nope but the major operations were over, Sadams army was defeated and it was a spectacular achievement. Only loser liberals would deny that.

47. JD Says: October 16th, 2004 at 10:26 pm

    Someone: There are two sides to every election. The guy you want to win and the guy you don’t want to win. We quite often have to pick the lesser of two evils and that is why you have to focus both on positives and negatives. I will take the guy who exhibits honesty and character every time. And a guy who says he is going to do something and then does it. You pick how you want.

48. Emory Says: October 16th, 2004 at 10:51 pm

    The war on terrorism is no where near over. There are too many terrorist leaders and terrorist cells active and governments supporting them.

49. Arouet Says: October 18th, 2004 at 9:28 pm

    Being at “war” does not give the president the power of a dictator.

50. Emory Says: October 18th, 2004 at 10:16 pm

    Of course, Arouet. U.S. presidents get that authority from congress and in a secondary sense, the U.N.

51. Serbian National Says: October 18th, 2004 at 10:23 pm

    But George W. Bush sure is acting like one, isn’t he? I mean, he hasn’t had to veto a single bill in the Congress (oh, wait, look here), he indeed isn’t bogged down by the legislative process (oh, no, wait, look at this. Even though it’s obviously from a liberalist site, it still gets the point across) and he definitely has no opposition in the United States.

    Sorry mate, democracy is still alive and kicking in America, however annoying it may sometimes be.

52. Arouet Says: October 18th, 2004 at 10:41 pm

    It appears some people believe that is the case, though.

53. draco Says: October 19th, 2004 at 8:19 pm

    oh lordy- it’s fun to watch the liberals squirm and twist in the wind like the crying babies they are! this is a comedy site! they have no sense of humor…
    if you need counterpoints to fareheit 9/11, there are plenty available. here’s one that you cannot denounce because it is actually based on facts: http://www.fahrenhype911.com/index.php

54. Arouet Says: October 19th, 2004 at 11:34 pm

    Sorry, I don’t think young men and women being killed because of Bush’s folly is funny.

55. Emory Says: October 20th, 2004 at 3:25 am

    I would say the folly of the U.S. not confronting Iraq and terrorism goes well beyond Bush into past administrations.

56. Arouet Says: October 20th, 2004 at 9:21 pm

    Yes, that is part of the folly. But going to war against Iraq was the apex of folly.

57. Emory Says: October 21st, 2004 at 2:26 am

    I think if you take into account all the bad decisions that were made over all administrations, the ones that lead to 9/11 were probably more harmful than the folly of defeating Saddam Hussein (at least in terms of casualties).

58. Serbian National Says: October 21st, 2004 at 2:31 pm

    Unfortunate though it may be, soldiers are dying for a good cause. Thanks to their hard efforts, we have beaten down a tyrannical regime and overthrown a cruel dictator who had either the possibility to create WMDs or even had WMDs. Anyone who says otherwise needs to check out the facts instead of everything that Sen. Kerry tells you. The greatest intelligence services in the world told us that Hussein had them, I doubt that they were all wrong. Saddam Hussein was also sposoring terrorism, so anyone who says outright (Sen. Kerry once more) that Iraq had no connections to terrorism is a fool.

    Even though it may seen coarse, the soldiers dying in Iraq and Afghanistan are doing their job - what they are paid to do. They signed up to possibly give their life in the defense of their country, and that’s exactly what they are doing over there in the Middle East.

    Michael Moore has the right to say whatever he damn well pleases. He is not a traitor, because there is no such thing in America (to a certain extent). What he is doing, however, is attempting to sway undecided voters against President Bush by using propaganda techniques and “facts” (I use that word lightly). Instead of using Mr. Moore to do it, why doesn’t Kerry present to us his plans on 1. what he will do better in Iraq (besides everything) or 2. how he plans to pay for everything?

59. Arouet Says: October 21st, 2004 at 3:57 pm

    No, they are not dying for their country in Iraq…they are dying for some special interests that are not the same as American peoples’ interest.
    Saddam sponsored Hezbollah - not a big threat to this country - they are not the same as Al Qaeda!

60. bonniem Says: October 21st, 2004 at 4:55 pm

    Every life is valuable of course. We lost more people on 9/11 for absolutely no reason, and so far less than half that number fighting for a cause in Iraq. Also for those people who say we are fighting for oil, are you also the ones who don’t want us to drill in Alaska, or off shore, and where do we get our energy supplies from? What do you drive? How much electicity do you use, how do you heat your home? The same as people who complain about losing our troops, but are all for abortion. And to be honest - if the occassion arose where I had to make a choice on abortion — I don’t know which way I would feel.

61. bonniem Says: October 21st, 2004 at 4:57 pm

    I think what I was trying to say (I know someone will jump on that phrase), if you don’t have a solution - workable solution- don’t judge so harshly.

62. Arouet Says: October 21st, 2004 at 5:10 pm

    The US is in Iraq for more than the oil.
    But, regarding oil…why do Americans need to consume so much of it? For example, there are no logical reasons to be driving around in huge SUVs. In Europe, we don’t.

    The need to develop alternate energy sources (not nuclear and dirty coal) was known in the seventies (maybe earlier), but not much was done. Why?

63. Emory Says: October 21st, 2004 at 5:14 pm

    Regarding “Saddam sponsored Hezbollah not a big threat to this country,” remember that in 1983 Hezbollah suicide bombers killed more than 250 U.S. Marines in Beirut by ramming a truck past a guard post and detonating a bomb against the Marines’ barracks. In 1984, Hezbollah kidnapped and murdered CIA station chief William Buckley. Also in Lebanon, four years later, they kidnapped Marine Lt. Col. William R. Higgins. They tortured Higgins before he died, and then published photographs of his battered body. Source: Frum.org article.

64. bonniem Says: October 21st, 2004 at 5:18 pm

    Arouet, I don’t know. I know that corn has also been mentioned as a source, but then I have heard that it is too expensive (whatever that means) and not a good source.

65. bonniem Says: October 21st, 2004 at 5:22 pm

    One thing on the size of cars, I feel safer in the midsize or larger car. I don’t drive the vans or suvs, but no more than I drive, it is not a big deal.

66. Arouet Says: October 21st, 2004 at 5:24 pm

    Did I say Hezbollah were not terrorists? No, I did not. But they are not a direct threat to the US, as despicable as their past actions have been.

67. Arouet Says: October 21st, 2004 at 5:28 pm

    But bonniem, that is part of the problem. Everyone needs a bigger and bigger vehicle to feel safe…what is next, tanks? What if, as a society, we all decided to go to smaller and more economical cars? We would use less fuel and all have vehicles of roughly the same size.

68. bonniem Says: October 21st, 2004 at 5:44 pm

    Well,if all of the cars were smaller, you wouldn’t have to worry about being hit by a suv.

69. bonniem Says: October 21st, 2004 at 5:47 pm

    I don’t believe safety is the issue always when a larger vehicle is chosen. But where it is a matter of “keeping up with the Joneses” that is a different matter. But you know, we live in America, where you have a choice and we exercise that freedom, and sometimes it leads to choices not in the best interest of America itself.

70. JD Says: October 21st, 2004 at 6:44 pm

    Arouet: I have a one word answer for your question of why we “need” SUV’s: Choice
    We don’t need SUV’s we need the choice to choose because through our choices we exercise our freedom and when you start to limit choice you then start to limit freedom.

71. Arouet Says: October 21st, 2004 at 7:32 pm

    Fine, JD. Then choose big, gas guzzling vehicles and live with your choice. That is what amazes me about America. You want your choices, regardless of how they affect your society as a whole, but you do not want the consequences of those choices.

72. shamdamble Says: October 21st, 2004 at 7:50 pm

    “As a non-american I’ve been following the discussions about Fahrenheit 9/11 with great interest. What really amuses me is that all republican websites accuse Moore of being a traitor because of the fact he’s telling “nothing but lies? in his film. So far I haven?t found a single website questioning this so called lies or proving these lies are wrong?”

    web site

73. JD Says: October 21st, 2004 at 9:14 pm

    Arouet: We not only are living with our choices we are wildly succesful because of them. I have no doubt that if and when the price of gas rises to the point SUV’s become to expensive we will want smaller cars. But the high gas price will also bring more supply to market, will make alternatives more viable and will encourage conservation. The market will and always does act rationally and that is what makes us successful. Not the arbitrary and capriciuos determination of “need”.

74. JD Says: October 21st, 2004 at 10:08 pm

    shamdamble: Many articles were written around the time F/911 was released. Newsweek in particular did a good piece on Moore’s misrepresenting the facts. Moore is a talented filmmaker and his deceptions are subtle and at times complicated. His biggest weapon is the half truth so it takes an effort on the individuals part to get the whole story. Images are taken out of context and juxtaimposed with storylines from different incidents. He is really somewhat masterful in his deceit and it is easy to see why people would be fooled.

75. bonniem Says: October 21st, 2004 at 10:26 pm

    Shamdamble, So you think the Republicans are making it up about the lies? You obviously haven’t kept up with what is going on over here except thru the biased news networks. It is a shame you are as gullible as a lot of the Dems.

76. Arouet Says: October 22nd, 2004 at 2:26 pm

    JD, it has been known for quite some time that there is not an infinite supply of fossil fuel, and that most of it comes from unstable parts of the world. (Only 3% could be gotten from the US). So, isn’t it short sighted to buy huge fuel guzzling vehicles that are no more functional than smaller cars because, at one point in time, fuel prices are low? Or can’t Americans see beyond the immediate?

77. JD Says: October 22nd, 2004 at 4:16 pm

    Arouet: One point in time fuel prices are low? Based on current dollars the cost of a gallon of gas is half what it was in the mid 1970’s and that was when we had a real shortage. You acually had gas stations out of gas and mile long lines. You have to parse the rhetoric on the supply of fossil fuels. “Known reserves” are limited because, duh, they are known. But what about unknown reserves? What about exploration that had all but stopped when oil was $12 a barrel just two years ago? There are many estimates that the potential amount of fossil fuels available in the future will be double or triple what we “know” to exist now. The point is the market will adapt to changes in supply and that consumers will make far more rational choices than any central planner who feels qualified to determine what people “need” and what they don’t.

78. Serbian National Says: October 22nd, 2004 at 6:34 pm

    Most Americans, and most people in the world, are short sighted - that’s just an undeniable fact. I will probably never drive an SUV, and I hope the much raised gas prices will bring their downfall because I certainly don’t like paying very large amounts for gas and under the economic law of supply and demand, the less demand the more supply and the less the price is. Even though it is unfortunate that most of our gas comes from unstable parts of the world, that is just another fact of life that we have to live with. With democracy in the Middle East, however, if it does win over (in 20-40 years, if that) then the gas coming from that area of the world would be coming from a stable part of the world and gas prices would be stable as a direct result of that.

    Isn’t that a reason to give them democracy, if you are only looking at it from the perspective of how can it benefit us? Besides the fact that these people are starved of freedom.

79. Arouet Says: October 22nd, 2004 at 8:15 pm

    I think what is boils down to is that Americans are a very materialist people, in general. Of course that is true of some Europeans, but we tend to value time more than money and quality over quantity.
    It is almost as if there is some huge emptiness in Americans’ lives that drives them to fill it with material possessions.

80. bonniem Says: October 22nd, 2004 at 8:20 pm

    Maybe we for the most part, just live life to the fullest. But not all Americans are materialst. Probably the ones you judge us all by are the ones you see on TV.

81. Arouet Says: October 22nd, 2004 at 8:34 pm

    No, bonniem, it is not people I see on tv, it is people I see daily! I live here - am a naturalized citizen. To me and others not born here, “living life fully” doesn’t mean filling your life with material goods.

82. bonn Says: October 22nd, 2004 at 8:59 pm

    I agree that living life fully doesn’t mean filling your life with material things, but I don’t see a lot of that among my friends and people I know and associate with. As a matter of fact I see very little of it other than on TV and in the movies.

83. Anonymous Says: October 22nd, 2004 at 9:02 pm

    Neither do we judge how our friends live. We are pretty acceptable of others.

84. Arouet Says: October 22nd, 2004 at 9:28 pm

    I am not judging - only saying that this enormous use of resources (in this case oil) will have repercussions we may not want to deal with.

85. bonniem Says: October 22nd, 2004 at 10:17 pm

    I guess we already are to a point,don’t you think. I don’t know what happened that Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico and some of those states who used to have oil wells all over the place, seemed to shut down in the late 70’s or early 80’s. Maybe someone out there might know.

86. Brooks Says: October 26th, 2004 at 11:13 pm

    I define a traitor as anyone who is or is trying to bring deliberate harm to his country… our country. Micheal Moore is a traitor because he is trying to bring harm to us because he hates us collectively. He hates our way of life, our freedom, but does nothing about it except wine and complain. Micheal Moore, if you don’t like it here, go live in China, they love you there.

87. Arouet Says: October 27th, 2004 at 5:02 pm

    Mr. Moore is not trying to bring harm to his country - but he speaks out when he feels something is wrong - and many of us agree with him. If you don’t like that, I suggest you go live in a dictatorship.

88. bonniem Says: October 27th, 2004 at 8:17 pm

    I suggest, Arouet, that you take a look at the gullible people who think Mr. Moores “documentary” is all facts, and understand that people who don’t believe him have as much right to live in this country and call him a liar, just as much as those with little knowledge have a right to live in this country and call our President a liar. I also suggest that if you can’t take it don’t dish it out! He is definitely trying to divide this country as he has claimed our President has. But I, along with others who do our own thinking, know exactly what he is trying to do.

89. Arouet Says: October 27th, 2004 at 9:56 pm

    First of all, bonniem, I should have addressed this to Brooks, as it was his comment I have an issue with. The point is not whether or not Mr. Moore is always Truthful (only the bible can claim that, yes?). The point is whether or not he can say/write what he likes (and others can criticize him) without being labeled a traitor. Throughout history, that tactic has been used by authoritarian governments and their supporters to silence opposition (often in bloody and horrific ways - read about the French and Russian revolutions), and using this tactic here is not worthy of this country.

90. brooks Says: October 28th, 2004 at 1:32 am

    it is a time of war and he is a propagandist… it’s that simple… I can’t wait til Fairhenhype 911 comes out its gnna be so great.

    And the best thing i’ve come up with to define a liberal is someone who thinks with their heart not their brain.

91. brooks Says: October 28th, 2004 at 1:36 am

    and my comment is not whether he can say/write what he likes dumbass, it’s stating that he is trying to bring home to our country. Way to go Bonniem for knockin some sense into the guy.

92. brooks Says: October 28th, 2004 at 1:37 am

    typo home should be harm sry bout that… got angry and was typin a bit too fast

93. Anonymous Says: October 28th, 2004 at 2:05 am

    I do think that people like Mr. Moore who write all these documentarys(?), movies and the like , ie Columbine, and wht was one about - Ihink Detroit-do so to put a negative impression on whatever he is writing about. I think he does it for money — not to change things for the better. I think he had a huge ego and little else to go with it. I believ he loves to stir up trouble - just for the heck of it and not to improve things. Therefore I have no respect for him and a very low opinion of him. But he really doesn’t do that to be popular. Just try to mess with peoples heads, so - what is the old saying? I won’t allow him to take up space in my mind.

94. brooks Says: October 28th, 2004 at 2:07 am

    touche anonymous, although your grammar looked like something you’d find on johnkerry.com

95. Anonymous Says: October 28th, 2004 at 2:21 am

    Sorry, teach! You know how it is. Refer to 92!
    Thot this was kinda like IM. the ones who read it figure it out. LOL

96. Serbian National Says: October 28th, 2004 at 2:41 pm

    Sometimes it’s easier to “figure out” some things more so than others.

    “Mr. Moore is not trying to bring harm to his country - but he speaks out when he feels something is wrong - and many of us agree with him”

    Many of you who believe that Mr. Moore DIDN’T misrepresent and bladantly make-up his “facts”; many of you who believe that Saddam Hussein wasn’t a threat to us because of his WMDs that “don’t exist”; many of you who think that the conflict in Israel between them and the Palestines can be solved by sitting down and “talking it out”; many of you who think that John Kerry is reliable.

    Case in point.

97. Arouet Says: October 28th, 2004 at 6:58 pm

    Odd how many in this country are so poorly educated when it comes to grammar and spelling…

98. Republican 4 ever Says: October 28th, 2004 at 7:12 pm

    its best to have poor grammar than poor info…

99. Arouet Says: October 28th, 2004 at 7:57 pm

    Well, you people have both.

100. Republican 4 ever Says: October 28th, 2004 at 8:01 pm

     your arguments are so strong…it’s hard to react to them

101. Serbian National Says: October 28th, 2004 at 8:19 pm

     Please point out to me where I misspelled anything?

102. Arouet Says: October 28th, 2004 at 9:04 pm

     “bladantly”

103. The Wompire Says: October 30th, 2004 at 6:30 am

     Moore speaks out when he thinks he can make a buck. He’s a people user. He and Kerry are soul mates.

104. An Aussie Says: October 30th, 2004 at 9:38 pm

     Seeing as Osama Bin Laden just used that obese assholles movie as a talking point, Id say that whatever credibility that jerk had is now long gone.

     Moore is a traitor, and a liar.

105. Arouet Says: November 1st, 2004 at 5:27 pm

     You people would have labeled Thomas Paine a traitor.

106. Allison Says: November 1st, 2004 at 5:43 pm

     go back and read comment #31 by kduey. This man would get my vote if he ran for president.He knows waht he’s talking about.

107. Emory Says: November 1st, 2004 at 6:46 pm

     I’ve read Thomas Paine, Arouet; I’ve seen documentaries on Thomas Paine; Thomas Paine is one of my favorite political writers… Ma’am, Michael Moore is no Thomas Paine.

108. Arouet Says: November 1st, 2004 at 7:11 pm

     Perhaps if you had lived then, Emory, you wouldn’t have thought so highly of M. Paine either.

109. Arouet Says: November 1st, 2004 at 8:37 pm

     Oh, and by the way, it is not “Ma’am”.

110. JD Says: November 1st, 2004 at 10:54 pm

     Moore should send Bush a thankyou card for making him rich.

111. dave barnes Says: November 2nd, 2004 at 4:01 pm

     liberals will go to hell because they don’t agree with us. so will all non-whites, poor people, and non-americans. it says so in the bible.

112. Winner, not Whiner Says: November 7th, 2004 at 7:26 pm

     Arouet, what I don’t understand is if you have all of this insight and good information on how a country should be run and how those in other countries do it better, Why subject yourself to this country instead of your own? The point is, we do do it differently and that is why we are the ONLY superpower in the world and why people like you would rather live here than in your country of origin.

113. Arouet Says: November 8th, 2004 at 4:10 pm

     Excuse me, Winner, but this IS my country now. That being said, it doesn’t mean I can’t criticize what I see as wrong and to work to fix it - I thought that was what a democracy was all about.

114. Serbian National Says: November 8th, 2004 at 7:48 pm

     That is democracy, and this country is democracy at its finest. Even if it creates a huge division in our country, maybe that will benefit us in the end.

     I’m terribly sorry, Arouet, but perhaps if you could get off your high horse and overlook the fact that I swapped a ‘t’ for a ‘d,’ we could have a more productive conversation.

     Did you just tell us that you lived during Thomas Paine’s time? That would be.. what, 200 years ago?

115. Arouet Says: November 8th, 2004 at 8:16 pm

     Alright Serbian, this is how I see the division: It is between secularists, who tend to lean towards a mild form of socialism (they want a safety net), and religious fundamentalists, who use and are used by those who believe in unfettered capitalism. Whether these groups can find common ground is doubtful.

     And no, unfortunately I wasn’t alive during Paine’s time - to have met the philosophes would have been wonderful!

116. Arouet Says: November 8th, 2004 at 8:26 pm

     Well Serbian,
     To get off my high horse - I think the division is between secularists who tend to lean towards a mild form of socialism, and religious fundamentalists, who use and are used by those who believe in unfettered capitalism. The chasm between these groups may not be able to be bridged.
     I wish I had been alive during M. Paine’s time - it would have been wonderful to have met the philosophes.

117. arouet Says: November 8th, 2004 at 10:14 pm

     Well, Serbian,
     Let me get off my high horse and say that I think the division is this country may be too deep to bridge. On the one hand are the secularists, who tend towards a moderate form of socialism, and on the other are the fundamentalists, who use and are used by the unfettered capitalists

118. JD Says: November 9th, 2004 at 2:49 pm

     Arouet, “unfettered” capitalism? I will take that any day over repressive and dogmatic “moderate” socialism.

119. arouet Says: November 9th, 2004 at 7:49 pm

     Then, JD, you don’t believe in any kind of social “safety net”? Some might define that as socialistic.

120. arouet Says: November 10th, 2004 at 3:28 pm

     JD, capitalism is only as good as those practicing it (same with socialism). Therefore, there must be restraints upon it to protect those who can’t protect themselves.

121. Anonymous Says: December 8th, 2004 at 12:24 am

     Mochael Moore is a fat communist bastard communism is never good because lazy asses leech off of other’s hard earned money.
     Actual Michael Moore quotes:
     “Ive always seen the faults of capitalism”
     “There is no terrorist threat”

     When asked if he liked America:
     “To a certain extent”

     In Farenheit/911 he makes the good soilders who sign up for the army because they love america look like evil dicks, but yet he sympathizes for the soilders that sign up just for college money. Bottom Line Michael Moore hates America.
     P.S. Thomas Paine didn’t spread communist propaganda.

122. chillliberal Says: December 8th, 2004 at 6:34 pm

     All Michael Moore haters are ridiculous! Saying he’s unpatriotic is also scandalous!! Haven’t you seen his other movies?? Probably not…you guys must be still stuck watching the crap hollywood feeds you (probably thinking you’re patriotic cause you watch Hollywood movies..made in the USA!! wow!!)…
     Take Roger and Me for example (one of his first documentaries…for you ignorant rednecks!!) In that documentary and in most of his other project he fights for the little people..the people of Flint Michigan who got screwed over by huge motor companies…don’t you want a guy that fights for the common man?? He’s about the only one that does it…communist propaganda?? Do you live in the 80’s? (or before) Can’t you accept that one guy is asking questions?? Continue obeying your master: CNN!!! hahahha ohhhh geez!! its a red terrorist warning today!! tell the Nebraska people to rush to the Walmart to get supplies for their bunker…soooooooooooo sad!!

123. bonniem Says: December 9th, 2004 at 6:52 am

     chillliberal, you are really silly!

124. Serbian National Says: December 9th, 2004 at 2:48 pm

     chill, you need to chill out. Michael Moore doesn’t fight for “the little people,” he fights for what he thinks will get more dinero for his “documentaries.” He sure wasn’t fighting “for the little people” with Farenheit 911, considering that anti-Bush and anti-war sentiment makes up almost 50% of the population.

125. chillliberal Says: December 9th, 2004 at 3:14 pm

     Politics are so sad in America that the liberal party should in fact consider (like M. Moore said) a guy like Tom Hanks to run for office…or Oprah…Republican’s should have a fun time destroying a simple actor and a BLACK WOMAN euhhhh!! I want Clint Eastwood to run as an independent! Thats my choice!! soooooo sad!!
     But seriously now…what about Warren Beatty???
     I’m gonna swim back to Cuba!

126. chillliberal Says: December 9th, 2004 at 3:49 pm

     Bonniem: I’m here for your entertainment only, just like the liberal party. Continue saluting the flag on your front lawn and thank God for the 17 year old Marines protecting your lazy biased *ss!

127. Serbian National Says: December 9th, 2004 at 6:22 pm

     You must learn to organize your thoughts coherantly when you are writing, otherwise no one will understand your stupidity. And we wouldn’t want that to happen, now would we?

     Go ahead and swim back to Cuba, I’m sure you can catch the return raft of several of your Cuban friends who are joining the millions and millions of people each year who immigrate to this nation. We must be doing SOMETHING right.

128. bonniem Says: December 10th, 2004 at 3:28 am

     Yep, chillliberal, I think you should swim back to Cuba. Why are you here anyhow? So you can be in a country where you can say what you want and not get thrown in the slammer. I don’t know what makes you think I am biased and I sure know that you don’t know me, to call me lazy. So you go ahead and talk tough and that will make you feel like a Big Man! You are pitiful! I do thank the marines and all of the troops here or abroad. I also thank their families. They are not only doing a great job, they are making sacrifices so you can sit on you biased and lazy *ss and criticize without having a solution. You must feel so good!

129. bonniem Says: December 10th, 2004 at 3:38 am

     chillliberal, Yeah, I think it is a good idea to swim back to Cuba. Why are you here anyhow? Want to be in a country where you can speak out without being thrown in the slammer. And you don’t know me, so you are judging me as biased and lazy. I also want to tell you that I do salute the flag and thank God for the men and women and their families, who fight for us to have the privilege of saying what we think. To me they are heroes. So, why don’t you get of your lazy biased *ss and do something to show you are more than just a blowhard. You must feel like a very big man.

130. bonniem Says: December 10th, 2004 at 3:40 am

     My comment to chillliberal is not coming thru. Must have said something wrong. I will just say then that, once again Serbian National, you and I are if full agreement about chillliberal.

131. chillliberal Says: December 10th, 2004 at 4:28 pm

     S. N. Thanks for the tip…I’ll go to the Rumsfeld school of creative writing. I’ll learn how to make the most general statements like: Are we for people getting their heads chopped off? Of course not!” Disagree with that! sheeesh!!

     Yeah the USA is so awesome for letting millions of immigrants to come illegally to the US. I really feel like I owe each citizen for letting me in. Just the fact that you have no compassion for people who had to swim/float and risk their life to come here shows your narrow mindedness…

132. bonniem Says: December 11th, 2004 at 5:39 pm

     chillliberal, I still don’t understand why you are still here when you hate it so much. You don’t have to swim back even. I bet there are just a whole lot of folks that would be glad to send you back. Maybe you can hitch a ride with some of the Hollywood folk that are supposed to leave after Pres. Bush was re-elected. At least they promised they would.

133. Serb National Says: December 13th, 2004 at 2:04 am

     Compassion for them? If we didn’t have compassion for them, we would be deporting them by the thousands every day! So far as I know (and I’ve done my homework) that’s not happening, and they have jobs (if not great ones, but that is what happens when you’re uneducated and inexperienced) that they get paid for doing. I have plenty of Hispanics doing lawnwork in my neighborhood every day (sorry for the stereotypical example) and I’m sure that, with the very large and growing Hispanic population in my city some of them are illegal. At least they are doing better here than they were at their homeland.

     Also, if we didn’t have compassion for them, would we hire them? I don’t think so.

134. Serb National Says: December 13th, 2004 at 2:05 am

     Oh, and bonniem - I’m sure they’ll say that next time when another Republican gets elected. And if we’re super lucky, they might actually leave this time.

135. arouet Says: January 6th, 2005 at 9:27 pm

     The Mexicans aren’t here because of our compassion - they are here to provide very cheap labour. And there may be another reason - both political parties hope to gain their support at some time in the future (when they are no longer “WOPS”).

136. Serb Says: January 7th, 2005 at 12:28 am

     They are here to get labor at all - whether they are paid a million bucks for it or minimum wage. Its sure higher than what they’d get back home. And if they aren’t citizens, I don’t belive they can vote.

137. arouet Says: January 7th, 2005 at 11:20 pm

     They can’t vote yet, but both parties would like to make it easier for them to become citizens. Why else all of the pandering to Hispanics that goes on?

138. James Says: September 7th, 2005 at 1:37 am

     Why so much negativity?
     in interpreting this artical we can trade sl