The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Well Steve, Surfer, and Niki........if you think its ok for a President to be sitting on his behind while some of his people are dead, some are dying, and others are in a fight for their lives then thats your right to think that.

Personally, I am very sickened by it.

Steve Spurrier III wrote:Right. So when he was informed the second plane had hit, what else was he to do? Order the planes to be shot down again? At that point there wasn't a lot he was capable of doing.

I have mixed feelings about "Farenheit 9/11". On the one hand, it is Moore's right to make such a film and I have to respect a man who does what he can to make changes in the world. On the other hand, it is propaganda. If it wasn't so blatantly abusing the facts, then I would have no problem with it. But Moore is not simply presenting facts, he is contorting the facts to create something to influence people, and I have no doubt that people will vote entirely based on what they saw in that film, which is sad.

I have not seen the film, because I have excercised my right as an American to not support the film financially. I will illegally download it off the internet at some point, because I would like to see it for myself...

I am against buying anything bootleg, but i might just break my rule and get it from the barbershop. or download it illegally like SSIII...

I dont fault Michal Moore for making this movie, it is his right as an American to do so. I do however question his motives and his backing as I do with all things that are political in nature.

Steve Spurrier III wrote:Right. So when he was informed the second plane had hit, what else was he to do? Order the planes to be shot down again? At that point there wasn't a lot he was capable of doing.

I have mixed feelings about "Farenheit 9/11". On the one hand, it is Moore's right to make such a film and I have to respect a man who does what he can to make changes in the world. On the other hand, it is propaganda. If it wasn't so blatantly abusing the facts, then I would have no problem with it. But Moore is not simply presenting facts, he is contorting the facts to create something to influence people, and I have no doubt that people will vote entirely based on what they saw in that film, which is sad.

I have not seen the film, because I have excercised my right as an American to not support the film financially. I will illegally download it off the internet at some point, because I would like to see it for myself...

michael moore distorting facts is no different than what any other politician-democrat or republican- does. they present whatever side of a fact that best suits their argument. moore simply presents his fact-bending argument in a film, rather than a speech or press release. that's why it pisses me off when an ad says that a candidate voted against extended benefits for veterans (for example), but fails to mention that the same bill called for handguns to be given to every child in public schools. i'm exagerating, of course, but the point is that there are no facts. every 'fact' that is presented to you is presented in a certain way to try to influence your thinking. it is done by both parties. 'history is an agreed-upon lie' (napoleon).

you are right that it is sad that people will leave the theater determined to vote based on what they saw. it is just as sad that people will vote based on a bush commercial they saw, or statements from the white house, or pressure that their views are 'unamerican'. it would be wonderful if people could instead take these voices at face value, intelligently evaluate if they make sense, and then make up their own minds. but unfortunately, most of the country lives off 10-second sound bites and allegedly biased (if you're a republican) media.

True. I guess I feel Moore has taken it to an extreme, but maybe that is just because I feel his medium is one of the more powerful ones we have ever seen used. I don't know. Politics blow. We should just play a football game every four years for the White House...

I think what bothers me most about farenheit 9/11 is the fact that it's trying to be passed on a documentary and it's anything but...the camera could easily be turned on a guy like Kerry and be a so called "documentary" twisting facts to influence people...but that's completely wrong too...but whatever

Steve Spurrier III wrote:We should just play a football game every four years for the White House...

Hey Steve....I just have to say that in a way we do play a football game for the White House.

Ever since the Redskins have moved to Washington they pretty much have decided who the next President is going to be. I guess you can call it superstition, but in a way its true.

The very last home game played before voters take to the voting booths. If the Redskins win their last home game then the same party stays in the White House (Bush gets re-elected). If the Redskins loose their last home game then a new party goes to the White House (Kerry or Nader get elected).

It has been like that ever since the Redskins have moved to Washington DC.

I haven't seen the movie but I've heard, read up on it and seen a few scenes from a lot of sources. I refuse to support this Bush witch hunt with my money. Any talented film maker can take fragments of statements and parts of footage and fuse them together to form a particular theme. A good film maker can make Bush look like a saviour if he or she wanted to by fusing different parts of footage and statements. I don't understand why a lot of people can't realize that. I guess they have a blind hatred toward Bush for whatever reason.

This is what I heard and read, but from what I understand, the movie showed Iraqis before the war drinking tea and looking like the happiest people on the planet. Then the evil U.S. attacks these people in cold blood. It doesn't take a genius to realize that saying the Iraqis are better off under Saddams brutal rule rather than being free is a steaming pile of B.S. Why doesn't Moore show footage of the Iraqis celebrateing by tearing down Saddam statues? Why didn't he show footage of the Kurds that Saddam gassed to death? Why didn't he show the footage of Bush having his arm around the fireman at the crumbled twin towers right after 9-11 back when his approval rating was in the 80% percentile?

I think it's obvious why people give standing ovations at the end of the movie in theaters. Because it's packed with mostly left-wing Bush haters. Bush supporters refuse to help Moore profit off it. I've read a lot of information that shows that Moore exaggerates and sometimes flat out has his facts wrong. But for some people, it doesn't matter if Moore completely lies in his movies. Bush haters will overlook that as long as the cheap shots help convince swing voters to vote for a canidate other than Bush.

Bush is being treated extremely unfairly by the media. Why can't Republicans and Democrats just debate their differences like ladies and gentlemen and let the voters decide who they want without the witch hunting. It's sad that this country has come to this. Besides, isn't Moore a Canadian? That may explain why he goes overseas and calls Americans the dumbest people on the planet.

Moore implies that the enemy is not militant Islam or Iraq; it is Bush, an inept and bumbling president who keeps himself in power with his color-coded terror alerts that trick Americans into thinking the nation is at risk of annihilation. The fact that Bush is simultaneously portrayed as a fool and as a master strategist of power is one of Moore's many contradictions.

Here's a review i read that really stood out to me...i see no reason to watch movie that's whole theme is a contradiction in itself...

for the rest of the article: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/review/movies/?id=fahrenheit911.htm

Here's a couple of good sites. www.moorelies.com and www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com

Redskins Rule wrote:

Steve Spurrier III wrote:We should just play a football game every four years for the White House...

Hey Steve....I just have to say that in a way we do play a football game for the White House.

Ever since the Redskins have moved to Washington they pretty much have decided who the next President is going to be. I guess you can call it superstition, but in a way its true.

The very last home game played before voters take to the voting booths. If the Redskins win their last home game then the same party stays in the White House (Bush gets re-elected). If the Redskins loose their last home game then a new party goes to the White House (Kerry or Nader get elected).

It has been like that ever since the Redskins have moved to Washington DC.

I would like to see some factual proof on this.

It's true, and someone did it in another thread around here somehwere...

I haven't heard of that one yet. Is that coming out in the theaters as well?

Michael Moore is anti-American. Not because he has a dissenting viewpoint, but because he says things about the country of America that denounce it. By definition, those are anti-American remarks. Furthermore, he's a socialist, going against the main ideals that this country were founded upon, not least of which is the right to PROPERTY. But remember, making remarks denouncing a country (much different than simply dissenting) is by definition being 'anti-whatever that country may be.'


p.s. Just in case you don't agree with me that he's a socialist, know that I'm saying this because he made remarks to the French media just a few days ago calling capitalism a "diabolical system," he advocates a socialized health care system, he hates big business, and there are many many more pieces of evidence. I'll pull out articles if anyone needs convincing, but in my opinion it's pretty obvious.

A politically-geared weblog I look at posted this link. It seems to be a bit better organized than the link that started this thread, supplying 59 deceits / lies in the 'documentary.' (the number is 59, despite what the URL says)

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysi ... it-911.htm

Brandon777 wrote:Why can't Republicans and Democrats just debate their differences like ladies and gentlemen and let the voters decide who they want without the witch hunting.

Oh man, I needed a good laugh. Not at you, just the idea of today's politicians not going for wishy washy sound bites or towing the line just to get the party nomination. Oh sure, there's a few rare exceptions out there. I don't know much about him or his political beliefs, but I'll assume Jesse Ventura is a good example.

General Failure wrote:

Brandon777 wrote:Why can't Republicans and Democrats just debate their differences like ladies and gentlemen and let the voters decide who they want without the witch hunting.

Oh man, I needed a good laugh. Not at you, just the idea of today's politicians not going for wishy washy sound bites or towing the line just to get the party nomination. Oh sure, there's a few rare exceptions out there. I don't know much about him or his political beliefs, but I'll assume Jesse Ventura is a good example.

Yeah, your right. It's pretty pathetic how the world is these days. The days of fair and civilized debates with no propaganda and no cheap shots are long gone.