Hi, i am new to the forum. I went out to see the Micheal Moore communist lie fest (otherwise reffered to as Farenheit 9/11). Needless to say I brought a lot of Aspirin. I found that the films trailers featured teen aged kids to young just-turned-18 voters. I dont know if anyone here read the Savage book "The Enemy Within" but the film really made me think of the books prolouge :

" A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those in the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of the government itself.
For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims. and he wears their face and their arguements, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep with the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear."

-Marcus Tullius Cicero
Roman Orator, Statesman 42 B.C.

5 years or so..he is a freaking loser dickead!!

let's hope all the other dumbasses in america (about 80% of the population there) will die, too.
more brezels for bush!

I'm glad to see that their is a movie out called, "Celsius 41.11 The temperature at which the brain begins to die." It straightens out all of Moore's distorted views. The bad news....have you heard of the movie?? Nope. I'm sad to see Americans don't even get a chance to see the truth. The website is www.celsius4111.com
I think Farenheit 9/11 made me the most angry when a friend of mine said "I just saw Farenheit 9/11 and it made me sooo sad! I can't believe we are going over to Iraq and killing all those poor people!" I knew from that moment on...michael moore is a traitor.

err.. you didn't kill all those poor people? they just died because they were so happy you "liberated" them?

The problem with Michael Moore is not that he's so wrong about Bush, but that he's a total hypocrit. Where the @#$% was Michael Moore when Clinton was invading Bosnia/Kosovo/Serbia? Where was he when Clinton was killing innocent people in aspirin factories? Where was he when Clinton was firing missiles to deflect attention away from the Lewinsky scandal? Give me a break.

Anybody who votes for the Democrat Kerry believing he will be any different is a complete and utter fool. Look at history. Who took us into WW1? The liberal Woodrow Wilson. Who took us into WW2? The liberal FDR. Who took us into Korea? The liberal Harry Truman. Who took us into Vietnam? The liberal LBJ. I guarantee you if John Kerry is elected and America suffers another major terrorist attack--which is very likely--Kerry will then attack another country--Iran, Syria, or Saudi Arabia. He will want to prove he's a tough guy and be seen as a strong war President and of course many people will pressure him for revenge--so he'll kill plenty of innocent people along with the few bad guys the army can locate. The only answer is a third party who stands for international neutrality and a withdrawal of U.S. troops from overseas. If we will just mind our own business, as Switzerland does, we will not be targeted by terrorists.

and europe and the world would be very happy.
but theres only one problem: who should clean up the mess you left behind in iraq and afghanistan? you've got a responsibility there.

Well, there is a mess, but it's not a complete mess since the Taliban is gone and Hussein is gone so there is a chance for a new start. I'm not saying that justifies the actions of the U.S., but at least SOMETHING positive came out of all the violence. Listen, a lot of the actions over there were completely wrong on the part of the U.S.--especially arming Hussein in the 80's against Iran. But I'm not about to take personal responsibility since I never voted for any of the Democrats or Republicans who caused this mess. I've always worked against them and tried to convince other people to vote for other political parties to try and promote peace, but people like me are a tiny minority in the U.S.

Ultimately, the people in those areas, Iraq and Afghanistan, will have to take responsibility for creating free governments. They will have to take responsibility for their own self defense so they are not preyed upon, either internally or externally. They will have to take responsibilty for all their needs and promote values of honesty, peace and justice. Sacrifices will have to be made when conditions are tough, but people must find the courage during such times or there will be death on a much larger scale. I see the nonviolent methods of Gandhi as the best way to effect political change. Military solutions usually only change one form of violence for another. I see the Swiss style of government in regards to foreign affairs as the best. Neutrality towards all nations, aggression against none.

One point of contention--you say Europe will be glad--but historically Europe has been one of the bloodiest places on the earth. Not blaming you of course--I'm just making an observation.

-----One point of contention--you say Europe will be glad--but historically Europe has been one of the bloodiest places on the earth. Not blaming you of course--I'm just making an observation.-------
true. europe created more suffering in it's history than even a 100-year period of a bush-government could cause. we've got much blood on our hands. especially the country i come from: germany.
but i also think we actually learned something. we created the european union, ending age old enmities, and trying to solve our problems using diplomacy. (except britain, of course)
but still, we're far away from our ideals. we're selling weapons to doubtful nations and we're ruining poor countries' economics by subsidizing our agricultural economy.
again, we don't think we're "better" than the us, as right-winged media tries to suggest. we just think, u.s. politicians are on the wrong way and we're trying to help.
we're partners and friends. and friends should listen to and respect each other.

Well, my anonymous German friend, I do hope we can all live together in peace one day. But I'm not so sure the European Union will foster this. I think the Swiss have done a good job of staying out of wars, therefore we should all follow their model. I think they're making a mistake by joining the EU and the United Nations. Alliances can lead to war. Best for countries to write a neutrality clause in their constitutions and stick to it. I think they should also require a national referendum by the people to vote on whether or not a country should go to war. Then require those who vote "yes" for war to immediately enlist in the military and do the fighting. I guarantee you a policy like this will stop the spread of "war fever" quickly. I despise cowards who favor war but want to send others in to combat to do the fighting for them. We have a lot of cowards like this in America today--they like the idea of fighting a war but they don't want to fight it themselves. They want other people or other people's kids to die for them.

swiss won't join the eu. the european law would force them to make their "banking secrets" public.
oh, and a membership in the un will never lead to war.

It's too bad that one person thinks he knows more about what is going on behind the scenes then the ACTUAL people behind the scenes do. I beg your pardon, but there is not one lie, or misstated fact in Mr. Moore's movie. Why do I dare make such a statement? Because before he released the movie, Mr. Moore worked with a team of lawyers in order to verify the content of his movie. The reason being, if anyone wished to discredit information he had in his movie as a lie, he could file suit. You would be correct in saying that Moore's movie is filmed and edited in such a way that it plays upon the emotions of it's viewers - e.g. the dramatic presentation of 9/11 in the film and other moments that are clearly meant for the audience to be experiencing some sort of sorrow or remorse. However, there is still no lying that occurs in this movie. Moore has simply taken public information, and put it into a dramatic perspective.
It's kind of funny, because in last night's debate, George Bush assured the American public - in defense of Kerry's accusation - that he had never said, "I don't deal with Osama bin laden very much, I don't know where he is, I don’t spend that much time on him..." etc. or anything of that sort. Had he perhaps been having one of his brighter moments, he would have owned up to what he said. For in Fahrenheit 9/11 Moore includes a clip from the President speaking at a news conference, where he states exactly what he told America he did not. So the finger now points to Mr. President, and why he intentionally lied to the American Public on national television during last night's final debate as he looked into the eye of the camera - and in doing so into the eyes of every person watching. But no surprise there, really...it wouldn't be the first time.

Sean,
Are you completely brainwashed? I can't stand Democrats like you who correctly point out all the flaws in the Republicans and then blatantly overlook all these same flaws in your own candidates. Kerry also lied on national TV last night, Sean. Where do I start? For one, Kerry said Bush had never met with the Congressional Black Caucus--an outright lie as pointed out by Brian Williams on NBC(Williams is no Republican by the way). Kerry has told numerous lies. I've been researching this guys voting record and he has voted for some very bizarre things in my opinion--that's when he decided to show up to vote... Both he and Edwards seem to have a very hard time showing up to do the work of the Senate.

Sure, Michael Moore made some very interesting points in Fahrenheit 9/11, but he's a complete hypocrit in regards to displaying images of war in which innocent people are being killed because he "paints the picture" and implies that this will not happen if a Democrat is elected yet it happened many times under Clinton--and where was Michael Moore? I'm sure you'll say, but we had to stop the genocide and that's different. Well, they just uncovered another mass grave in Iraq that contained the remains of pregnant women and small children. But Milosovich is a lot worse than Saddam, right, Sean? (Give me a break...) My point is that if you're going to be against war, you stand against war on principle. You can't say war is bad when Republicans wage it and good when Democrats wage it. That is completely asinine. You've got to be irrational as hell to have that point of view.

i stand against war in principle. no matter if a democrat or republican is president. i really don't care.
i can't stand both canditates telling wars at foreign continents against countries without even a chance to defend against the us army (so how can they be a threat?) are defensive wars. that's so pathetic.
the only real threat you guys were facing the last century were russia, germany and japan.

And the threats of Germany, Japan and Russia were actually created by our interventions. If the United States would have remained neutral in World War I, it is unlikely that World War II and all the following wars would have ever happened.

Most history books view WW1 and WW2 as the story(s) of America relunctantly being dragged into both conflicts to save the day, but this is far from the truth. The revisionists have done a good job of ignoring facts and spreading fiction. WW1 was really at the point of stalemate before America entered the fray. There were massive troop desertions on both sides, resources had been drained, and the will to fight was waning. Had the US not entered the war, most likely there would have been a truce in less than a year and all sides would have walked away. But, Wilson had been manuevering to get the US involved all along, because that was his worldview--that America would be the great empire and stand at the forefront of the League of Nations. He was an authoritarian and saw intervention as a right--even though in all the major polls over 80% of Americans were against entering WW1 and wanted the US to remain neutral (how's that for our leaders representing the people?). Also, keep in mind that many Americans viewed the Germans favorably, not as enemies, but Wilson's administration paid over 6,000 public speakers to tour the country, inciting Americans to war and villifying the German people as warmongers.

Now, once America's strength was added to Britain's, the war weary Germans were easily defeated and of course "to the victors belong the spoils". And with the Treaty of Versailles, did they ever take the spoils. I don't know if you've ever read the Treaty of Versailles, but I would recommend that everyone take a look at a great example of how not to end a war. There were people at the time who said, hey, this is going to start another war, but no one listened. The problem was that they were taking so much from the Germans--it amounted to an 80% tax of their natural resources. Ask yourselves, how would you feel if someone suddenly started taking 80% of your income? Would you have trouble "making ends meet"? If you read Hitler's writings, he was enraged by the Treaty of Versailles, and I can definitely understand why the German people were upset. It's kind of hard to recover from a major war when you're hamstrung by what amounted to an 80% tax. I am in no way implying this excuses what the Nazis did later. I'm only saying that I can understand that violence would follow pursuant to the laws of cause and effect.

Now, for those who believe that FDR did not lie and deceive the American public in order to draw them into the war (the vast majority of the American public also wanted to remain neutral during WW2), please read "Day Of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor" by Robert Stinnett. I would also recommend that you read Richard Maybury's books "World War 1, The Rest of the Story" and "World War 2, The Rest of the Story". You'll get quite an education from them--an education based on facts and logic, not beliefs and propaganda.

The leaders of most countries seem to continually maneuver to provoke wars and apparently enjoy playing with the lives of human beings as if they are chess pieces. I'm certainly not saying that America is alone in this regard, I'm just saying that the majority of people do not desire war, yet our leaders ignore the wishes of the people. For those who believe that intervention is necessary to maintain stability, my response is look at Switzerland. Are they not an incredibly stable country? The Swiss are in the center of Europe, yet they remained neutral throughout WW1 and WW2 and were not attacked (minus a few accidental bombings) and did not participate in attacks on any other countries. And why aren't Osama Bin Laden and the terrorists attacking Switzerland? After all, Switzerland is one of the richest countries in the world... I'll tell you why, because the Swiss don't interfere in the business of others. They don't sell weapons to other countries, they don't build hundreds of military bases all over the world and deny they're an empire, and they don't quarter troops in other countries. They stay to themselves and they don't provoke anyone.

My answer to the question "would the world be better off if Hitler had victory over Europe?" is Hitler would have never been in power if America had remained neutral during World War 1 because the circumstances that led to World War 2 would have never existed. Hitler would have never felt the desire to become a dictator and restore Germany to prominence because Germany's economy would not have been devastated by the Treaty of Versailles and subsequent hyperinflation. Cause and effect...

Hitler barely gained power and would not have been able to do so without the chaos and hardship created by the Treaty of Versailles. Realize that he was elected Chancellor of Germany BY ONE VOTE! There were many in Germany who opposed him. But hyperinflation had virtually destroyed the German economy leaving the people in a very desperate situation. It was so bad a loaf of bread cost the equivalent of $300,000 in present day USD!!! Needless to say the monetary system became basically meaningless and people resorted to barter for essentials. Most of the German people lost EVERYTHING. For the young, their future looked meaningless—for the old, their retirement savings was wiped out. It took these types of conditions to leave people susceptible to falling prey to the fascism of a charismatic Hitler-type. And yet he still barely gained power—because there were those right-thinking individuals in Germany who opposed him throughout his ascension to power.

And of course, if World War II never happens, then the Soviets never gain their power over a weakened Europe and thus America is never drawn into NATO or the Cold War. Violence begets violence. The only logical course of action is to remain strong and capable of defending yourself, as the Swiss do, but do not aggress on or interfere in the affairs of other coutries.

To be honest, I laughed when I read you're response. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I never said anything about my non-existent support for Kerry, nor did I ever state I was a Democrat. It's funny because it's people like you that I (can't stand is a little extreme since America is about tolerance) find frustrating because you automatically identify facts stated about a movie or a presidential debate as liberal. All I ever referred to in my post was Fahrenheit 9/11. When I mentioned Bush's lie in the debate, it was because I was pointing out something that was in the movie, not because I wished to advocate my "liberal" outrage. And as a result of my last sentence I gave my post a proper title (implying that Bush lies, not Moore’s film…it had nothing to do with anyone else. Not Kerry, not Edwards)

And though I am not too pleased to say so now, I did vote for Mr. Bush in 2000 (but originally for McCain in the Primaries). Even with my vote, however, it was an election in which he had to cheat in order to win. I believe in a fair electoral process, and if anyone wishes to label the 2000 election as that, I must say that they are gravely mistaken. Is this a liberal or democratic “view”? No. It is simply the truth, and though I may have strong conservative ideals, it does not mean that I must be dogmatic for an administration that has conducted its policies under a cloak of deception.

I must say that you are wrong in your assertion that Mr. Moore's movie is essentially Democratic propaganda. You seem to have taken this movie as a personal attack against our party, but it’s not, there is no connotation of “it’s us against them” or that “republicans are bad”. It was made as a documentary for a reason, because it is a presentation of information, not political bias (though I will not deny the spin put on it by cinematography and other filmmaking techniques along with dramatic sequences). But Moore was very meticulous and careful about not outright lying, but instead making suggestions here and there, which are left to the interpretation of the audience. At no point in this film does Moore ever reference a Democratic administration on the basis that, "they could have done better", nor does he even imply, or hint at this (perhaps you think they could have done better, and perhaps that is why you drew this conclusion). Moore’s film only shows how corrupt and absurd our foreign policy has been, which he proves with facts, not lies. It has nothing to do with any political party, Bush just happens to be a Repbulican.

Moore is also not a hypocrite as your reasons state. He was very outspoken, and gave dozens of speeches and talks at high schools and colleges on how he was opposed to the Clinton administrations actions in Kosovo. In Bowling for Columbine (his doc. Before F. 9/11) he mentions a few times how on the same day that the kids shot up the school, Clinton had dropped most bombs yet since the war’s beginning.

-- But Milosovich is a lot worse than Saddam, right, Sean? (Give me a break...)--

Why don’t YOU give me a break from lambasting me about a position you made up for me? But if you would like my opinion: I don’t think Milosovich is any worse than Saddam, it’s just that when Saddam was committing genocide, the ‘Gipper’ and his administration supported him as an ally, and willingly turned a blind eye to what he was doing to the Kurdish people. And if you want to take it one step further, the U.S. gave him the chemical weapons he used to do it.

On a lighter note, I do agree with you that Kerry has a very odd voting record as a senator. : )

Love,
Sean

some facts about german and european history:

the first worldwar:
-germany and austria-hungary were allied in the so-called "zweibund".
-britain, france and russia were allied in the so-called "entente".

outbreak of war:
when franz ferdinand, the austrian successor to the throne was killed in serbia, austrian-hungary set an ultimatum to serbia they could not fulfill. after time was run off, austrian-hungary declared war to serbia. but serbia was under the protection of russia, so they mobilized their troops. germany followed the "schlieffen-plan" and declared war to france and russia.

the "schlieffen-plan":
germany felt surrounded by powerful enemies. they knew, they couldn't win a war against the entente. so one of their generals developed a plan to defeat them:
-rush france with the power of all german troops and capture paris as fast as possible
-when paris is captured, attack russia with the bundled force of your troops.

but the plan failed. russia mobilized their troops faster than expected so germany couldn't strike with their bubdled forces on paris. they got stuck in france. (so the war was allready lost at this point!)

britain enters the war: germany rushed through the neutral belgium in order to go around the french defense. but britain feared a long coast under german control, so they declared war on the zweibund.

usa enters the war: usa supported britain by sending wares and food to them overseas. germany answered with u-boat attacks. the usa became mad and forced germany to sign a treaty not to use u-boats any more. when germany dismissed this treaty, usa entered war.

Sean,
My sincere apologies. Yes, I jumped the gun--I've been a member of too many forums It's a bad habit from getting constantly attacked by liberals wherever I go... But I am glad that you at least got a good laugh out of it.

I would disagree with you on a couple of points. I don't think the election was rigged. I just think it was very, very close and people always go nuts in a close election. All you have to do is look back at the other close elections in American history, specifically those in which the winner of the popular vote lost the election: 1888, 1876, and 1824 I think. No black person was denied the right to vote--there is simply no evidence of it. No black person filed any type of report with law enforcement or any other type of formal report with any government body. Besides, that type of accusation is made in every election by the Democrats. I've seen them pull that same stunt several times.

As for Bush, I don't think he is as deceptive as everyone claims. Regardless, I would never vote for him. (I did not in 2000 and I will not vote for him now either. I wouldn't vote for him in a million years.) While he has lied during his term, when it comes to the "war on terror" I believe that he truly thinks he is doing the right thing in making these pre-emptive strikes. He's just incredibly misguided and not very bright and doesn't understand what's happening in the world around him. Kerry I see as no better. Just a different shade of the same color--less dense but more deceptive. Kerry constantly lies on the campaign trail also. And he's definitely arrogant and elitist.

In regards to the "our party" comment, sorry but I'm not a member of the Republican Party. I'm a dues paying member of the Libertarian Party and it's going to be my home for the rest of my days. I can't in good conscience support the two party system anymore. It looked like the Republicans might actually make some positive changes in the 90's when they took control of Congress but now they just look like Democrat-Lite. Any true conservative has to feel betrayed by the deficit spending, the war, the Patriot Act, and the increases in government spending. I honestly don't see how conservatives can vote for Bush.

But, I think Moore did plant some subtle messages in his movie favorable to Democrats though. In particular I remember one wounded vet saying he was going to become active in the Democratic Party when he got home. Moore said nothing and the silence (as well as it's place in the movie) was clearly an approval of this guy's assertion that nothing like this would happen under a Democratic President which is complete bulls#$t. Moore can't help himself. I'm sure he'll vote for Kerry. If he felt strongly about another candidate he's had plenty of time to mention if he's voting for Nader, the Green Party or whoever but he hasn't said a word about this. You know he wants Bush out more than he's ever wanted anything in his life so we know who he's ultimately for. I do see it as slight propaganda--not major propaganda--but slight propaganda.

Yes, the U.S. did initially arm Saddam. And the only way to change insane policies like these is a major upheaval of foreign policy which is only going to happen with a third party. Find one you can support and get involved.

http://www.lp.org/
http://www.constitutionparty.com/
http://www.natural-law.org/
http://www.greenparty.org/
http://www.reformparty.org/cgi-bin/hcgmain.cgi

Peace

Natural Law no longer exists, and the Constitution Party is a really religions organization, too religious for me.